|
Since CDOSYS is a builtin tool in ASP.NET, you may be more likely to get an answer in the ASP.NET forum instead of the SQL Forum.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm attempting to build a Version calculator that will increment based on a depth field. I need this to execute inside a Stored Proc. My depth is 5.
For example, I have 1.1 so the next time I call the Stored Proc it will be 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5. After it fills up based on that depth I want it to go down to the next level so the next one would be 1.1.1. The next would be 1.1.2, 1.1.3, etc... Once that bottom version fills out it will only go up one level. ie: 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, ...
|
|
|
|
|
bgates1970 wrote: My depth is 5.
Mine is 1. I'm glad you didn't ask any question, clearly I wouldn't be up to it anyway.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
|
|
|
|
|
a 1? You're significant other must be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
a big 1, I admit.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
|
|
|
|
|
sometimes its best to stay separated from reality
|
|
|
|
|
What's supposed to happen after version 5.5.5.5? 
Rename the product?
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
| 42
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
LOL! This one takes the cake! Do the math! Do you realize the number of versions you would be compiling? By that time I hope the product is obsolete.
|
|
|
|
|
Uhm, .... let's see.
Five times five, that's twenty five. Five times twenty five, well that's just five times five again which is a five and a carry of two. Then you have five times two which is ten, but you have to add the carry of two which is twelve, so that's one hundred and twenty five. Oh man this is starting to get serious. How big is this number going to get. Five times one hundred and twenty five is five times five again that's twenty five which is really just a five with a carry of two. Then there's that five times two again which is ten and the carry of two which is twelve, but that's just a two and a carry of one and finally there's five times one which is five but you have to add that carry of one again to make it a six. There you have it, six hundred and twenty five versions. 
You're well on your way.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
I understand Math for some people is very difficult. If you started at 1.1, using a Depth of 3 and started incrementing by 1 it would look like... 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3... So 625 versions is right on according to your math. Sorry but using a depth of 5 would be quite a bit higher than 625. You are correct though I have gotten what I expected out of this forum... smart a$$ comments and nothing really substantive.
|
|
|
|
|
bgates1970 wrote: I have gotten what I expected out of this forum
Glad to have helped you out, then. When you have an actual question that you need assistance with, I'll be glad to continue that help.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
bgates1970 wrote: I have gotten what I expected out of this forum... smart a$$ comments and nothing really substantive.
Try rereading your original post. Do you see anything substantive there? Do you see a question?
It's time for a new signature.
|
|
|
|
|
you're making things hard on yourself. Five simply is 10 in base 5. So the fourth power of that is 10000. That's all. No carries involved.
However, it is not the available number of versions, as the early versions would have fewer digits; so the better approximation would be 11110 in base 5. Note that I left out one, as I assume the very first version will have one digit, not zero digits. Unless you forget about version numbers until you actually need them.
It is too bad we never got an actual question about this very interesting subject...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets.
I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Unless you forget about version numbers until you actually need them
You're right. I leave the numbering to my version control provider. Though I understand that someone has to write and maintain the code that implements some numbering scheme.
The OP used the word 'depth' and you are inferring that as 'base 5'. And that may well be the intended assumption, but obviously along with a clear and concise question, there was much more lacking from the post. My use of simple arithmetic was a poor attempt to sarcasticly point that out to him.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) first of all i want to save a TreeView in database
i designed a table with three fields (ID , NodeName,UpareNodeID)
and create a relation ship with ID and UpareNodeID is it correct?
i want to know if there is a better solution to save and retrieve this kind of collection
2) the second problem : how can i make a relationship from a field to another in the same table in ms access 2007 ?
thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
All the fields in each row in your table, are automatically related to each other, by being in the same row. You can not and do not need to create any relationship.
If you want to relate values from one row to those in another row, you will have to create two tables, and create a relationship between those.
So for example something like:
Table 1: Nodes (ID, NodeName) Where ID is unique
Tabl e2: UpareNodes (ID, NodeName, Parent_ID)
Relation: Nodes.ID = UpareNodes.Parent_ID
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm trying to store RTF data inside of Transact-SQL and have used a data type of TEXT, however when retrieving the data from the database all I am receiving is the actual text, all of the RTF markup is gone and I am just receiving plain text.
My question is what should I be using for a data type, since TEXT is not working the way I thought it would.
Thank you,
Glenn
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
gmhanna wrote: what should I be using for a data type
TEXT will do; it can also hold text with markup, like RTF and HTML.
What property are you writing to the field? Make sure that you're saving the Rtf[^] property to the database, and not the Text[^]. The first will contain all text, with the Rtf-markup. The second property, "richTextBox1.Text", only contains plaintext.
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Eddy,
I have been trying to locate how this is attached. I am using a "Data Source" and the control is bound to the data source. I have been scouring the code trying to see something like rtftextbox.text or rtftextbox.rtf, but I'm not locating it.
This control was placed on the form by dragging the RTF control from the data source and dropping it onto the form. I usually code the SQL stuff by hand but thought the automated tool was cool.
Thank you,
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
gmhanna wrote: I have been scouring the code trying to see something like rtftextbox.text or rtftextbox.rtf, but I'm not locating it.
That's probably in InitializeComponent(), binding the property.
gmhanna wrote: I usually code the SQL stuff by hand but thought the automated tool was cool.
It can save a lot of boring typing-work, but you'll get surprises like these in return
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
I have this line of code in the InitializeComponent() for the binding. I could not find a definition for the word "Text", but I think what you are hinting at is I should try changing this to Rtf?
this.commentsRichTextBox.DataBindings.Add(new System.Windows.Forms.Binding("Text", this.reunionBindingSource, "Comments", true));
Thank you,
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
That should work, but keep in mind that it's a generated file; I don't know whether the designer will pick up the changes correctly.
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
Just to be picky, if your using SQL 2005 or later i would use VARCHAR(MAX)
As TEXT has been decpreciated and should be removed in the next version of SQL
Marc Clifton wrote: That has nothing to do with VB. - Oh crap. I just defended VB!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
