|
sorry
I had given tags for the above program so, it is not in clear xml format.
for first xml file
ie john1,john2,.... comes for a field "name" tag(element)
and 8100,8200,8300..etxc comes for "slary" tag(element)
second xml file
ie, john milton, stephen,george, thomas,paul all comes for a field " name" tag(element)
so now i have insert the data's form second xml file and load those values to the same field of first xml file.
santhosh
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to 'lock' an entire folder, not just a file in side? I read this: http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/CryptoSafe.asp[^] and it lays out the info very well, but is there a way to adapt it to do an entire folder so that it cant be opened?
|
|
|
|
|
The only way you're going to accomplish anything like this is to Crpto every file in the folder. There is no way to do the same for the folder itself.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
this will be difficult as some files will be very large ( 500mb or bigger). I and speed is very important.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, it's not possible to do it on the folder itself. In order to accomplish something like this, you'd have to replace the NFTS File System with your own implementation.
Since security is an issue, look into using the security system that's built into Windows and/or whatever network your using to control access to these resources. That's what it's there for...
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Like I said, it's not possible to do it on the folder itself. In order to accomplish something like this, you'd have to replace the NFTS File System with your own implementation.
Maybe I missed the point here but I though this thread is about encrypting all files in a folder and that is actually supported by NTFS.
Best regards
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
Like I told him, encrypting the FOLDER isn't possible because it's just a pointer to a list in the file table. Encrypting the contents of the folder is possible using either an external program or using the NTFS encryption. But in the latter case, he'll still need to go read the documentation on it to understand how to use it.
Most of the time, when someone posts a question like "how can I password protect a file or folder so noone else can open it", it usually means that they want to protect every file in a folder so you can't even open it in Notepad without a password box coming up.
This question was no different, and I referred him to the security features of the OS, be it using ACL's to control access or encryption. The choice is up to him, so long as he reads about the features and pitfalls of each and understands them.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Like I told him, encrypting the FOLDER isn't possible because it's just a pointer to a list in the file table.
A folder is actually a file with certain attributes (see The NTFS File System[^] section NTFS File Attributes). As folders have an encryption attribute too, you can use this to ensure encryption of files that will be created in that folder (given that nobody disables ACL inheritance). By the way, the documentation states that you can encrypt files and folder so I assume that in case you set the encryption flag for a folder the file (which represents the folder) is also encrypted (yeah, I know, that does not answer the original question  ).
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
But in the latter case, he'll still need to go read the documentation on it to understand how to use it.
It seems that you only need the function EncryptFile()[^] (but there is also a more detailed article about that titled A Programmer's Perspective on NTFS 2000[^]).
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
This question was no different, and I referred him to the security features of the OS, be it using ACL's to control access or encryption. The choice is up to him, so long as he reads about the features and pitfalls of each and understands them.
I definitely agree about that! 
Best regards
Dennis
|
|
|
|
|
Great! Now that the detail of his project actually come out, all of this was moot.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Ok so then I guess my next question is about folder hiding. How secure is this method?
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all...
Like I said, look into the security features of NTFS. It's the ONLY method that will allow you to secure a folder so only certain people/groups can see what's inside.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Let me explain what I am trying to do. I am trying to create an electronic file distribution program, much like Steam. Unlike Steam, I want any game developer who wants to use it, the option to. What I am looking to do is require as little code moddification on the devs part. What I want to happen is that the entire game is downloaded in one file (could be an encypted folder or some varient of a zip file). When the user runs this program it checks the database (online mode) or a file stored on the user's machine (offline mode) to see if the user has permission to unencrypt / unzip the folder and run the contents. This leads to a problem that the decrypted / unziped files can not be placed onto the user's harddrive in as accessible manner as doing so would allow a devious user to just obtain these files from another user who has legit permission. Thus receiving a free game. Any thoughts on how this can be done?
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO ... If your worried about someone cracking your scheme, give up now because it WILL happen no matter what you do. Copy protection has been a pipe dream for a couple decades now. Every scheme is crackable because every scheme comes down to a single little IF statement that can be changed by the "devious user" to ignore the conditions setup to protect your app. Suddenly, your app won't care if it was protected or not, encrypted or not, licensed or not, ...
Even Steam has been cracked six ways from Sunday. And on top of that, Steam is also locking out ligitimate users! Is this really what you want?
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Hey is there a way to have mousewheel panning in a custom UserControl? I meen like in Internet Explorer when you click the middle mouse button you enter in panMode.
or can you give me a link to information on how to make a implementation of this!!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Can anybody help me on how to develop a online poll using ASP.NET with C#. Pls let me know if you have any example.
Tx
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, i'm making a serverbrowser...(program that sends out udp sends with asynch sockets to videogame servers and listens for what comes back which contains info about the servers status)...and sometimes when i exit from the program i notice that it doesn't leave from the taskmanager...i.e. still running.
I have no clue why this is happening though because i set the socket timeout options to end if a query hangs (wonder if that even means anything when doing stuff asnchly)
zzz confussed.
|
|
|
|
|
Last month I asked a question on this forum about the relative efficiency of passing value types that were member of reference types or member of arrays as parameters to functions using ref and out. My original question was whether or not it would be more efficient to pass a large structure that was a member of a class using ref even if I didn’t need to make modifications to the stuct t needed to be passed back to the calling routine. In C or C++ it would be more efficient to pass by address and Jeffrey Richter in his excellent book: “Applied Microsoft .NET Framework Programming” also says that it is more efficient in to pass large value types using ref in C# (although he isn’t specifically referring to value types that are embedded in reference types). Anyway, the answer that I got back on this forum was that passing a value type that was embedded in a reference type using ref or out would require boxing the value type which of course would be very inefficient. I was also told that if I was going to pass something around a lot that it should be class rather than a struct. And I was also told that large objects should also be classes for efficiency.
Anyway, I am hoping to get some more opinions on this. I checked several C# books and searched the internet and I haven’t found anyone saying that passing a struct that is embedded in a class using ref would cause the struct to be boxed. Also I have looked at some IL code of that circumstance and I don’t see any Box instructions. Rather I see a ldflda instruction which: “Finds the address of a field in the object whose reference is currently on the evaluation stack” which sure looks to me like it is passing the address of the struct. If C# really does pass an address, that would be the more efficient way to pass a large struct. So from my understanding, it looks like passing structs embedded in classes using ref does not cause boxing therefore, I still don’t have any reason to believe that it would be more efficient to make large structs classes or that large objects that need to passed around a lot should be classes. Can anyone enlighten me further about this? Also, assuming that C# really does pass structs that are embedded in classes or arrays using ref by passing the address of the struct, how does C# get around not having to pin the enclosing class or array to prevent it from being moved by the garbage collector and there by making the passed address invalid? I know I am not supposed to think about addresses anymore but I really do need to figure out what the most efficient way of passing large structs around or if I really should make them classes – even though they don’t need to be classes for any other reason. Thanks so much for the help.
Paul Sawyer
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
i got several settings objects stored in a ArrayList. i can do the simply single object serialization. but, any method to serialize the whole ArrayList to a xml file?
thanks,
jim
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried to just serialize the whole ArrayList alltogether? An ArrayList is an object like any other. If I remember right it is even serializable. So if all contained classes are serializable it should work with a single function call.
Other solution would be to copy your objects (from the ArrayList) into an object array (object[]) and serialize it.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, the current method i used is the copy the arraylist to a object array like below code but it need extra work
private ArrayList listTradePattern;
public class TradePatternList
{
public TradePatternList()
{
listTradePattern = new ArrayList();
}
[XmlElement("Pattern")]
public TradePattern[] TradePatterns
{
get
{
TradePattern[] tradepatterns = new TradePattern[ listTradePattern.Count ];
listTradePattern.CopyTo( tradepatterns );
return tradepatterns;
}
set
{
if( value == null ) return;
TradePattern[] tradepatterns = (TradePattern[])value;
listTradePattern.Clear();
foreach( TradePattern tradepattern in tradepatterns )
listTradePattern.Add( tradepattern );
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I want to make pdf's out of my crystal reports in asp.net....i don't want to use the export function provided...instead i want to use some 3rd party pdf writers since the quality will be much higher(preferably Adobe Distiller)....does anyone know how can this be done....
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, but there are alot of PDF open source applications on "SourceForge.Net", do search for "PDF"
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to get the X,Y coodrinates (in 'real time') of the mouse as I move it around a Windows Form...If possible I would like the cooddinates displayed to follow the cursor..
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
see this one on MSDN[^]
dunno how much real-time it is. (think about direct x)
Do you have visualStudio? IntelliSense is good if you want something obvious (Button.MouseMove in this case )
best regards,
David 'DNH' Nohejl
Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
|
|
|
|
|
I've added a horizontal scrollbar to my form and want to have it change a value in a textbox. Well, everything works fine... except that the scrollbar can only reach 91 (with the maximum set to 100). Now, with the textbox I can set the scrollbar to its max, but I cannot scroll to it. Any known issues, tricks or properties I need to know about?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
