|
tankx,but i need the Form resizeable without title bar,My applications UI like MSN 7.5, can u answer me before look over MSN or MS MediaPlayer UI? thank u
d
-- modified at 23:18 Tuesday 29th November, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
If you hide the title bar, can't you still resize the form by the edges ? If not, then you can easily code this behaviour, just capture the mouse on the edges, and if it's down, use the amount the mouse moves to resize your form.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
yes, i can't resize the form after hide tile bar in runtime, i know ur means,and code it easily in VC++,but u can give me the code in C# , i dont know well C#.
thankx very much!
d
|
|
|
|
|
It seems there is one property - formborderstyle, and sizable is one option, none is another. The only option I can think of is the one I gave - make it none, and then code the sizing part yourself.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
...Is deprecated, and I discovered what I need use delegates instead.
Ok, I have not NONE idea (nor examples)like I do this...
Some may help?
Jesus is love, tell to someone!
|
|
|
|
|
click.ok wrote: Is deprecated, and I discovered what I need use delegates instead.
Im not sure how you would use delegates, but deprecated means it still works, but will probably be removed in the next version or 2.
xacc.ide-0.1 released! Download and screenshots
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone..
I'm currently doing a web application using C# which i'm unfamiliar with the prgram. I need urgent help~ My problem is that if i retrieve the database, how can i select, edit or delete the particulars from the database which i select? Anyone who know how to code it?? I have tried several times and it seem like is not right.. Your help is greatly appreciated.. Thankz.. =)
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Hello_mouse wrote: My problem is that if i retrieve the database, how can i select, edit or delete the particulars from the database which i select?
Using SQL. You don't retrieve a database, you retrieve a set of data which is a snapshot of the moment when you asked for it. You retrieve data, but you execute SQL to update or delete data seperately, although you may use the data you got back to build your query ( although it's better to use stored procs than to send SQL to the database ).
Google is bursting with help on this.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on an app that has an Outlook-like interface where the right pane switches to different forms based on the users choices on the left navigation area.
It's started small with perhaps 5 forms available and so I started with variables for each form type in the main form. When a user makes a choice a switch statement is executed, if the form is null then it's instantiated and switched into view. At closeup all non-null forms are properly closed and cleaned up.
This was OK and worked well, the form is never instantiated if the user never chooses it and instantiated forms are very quick to switch to as the user works in the app, but it's starting to grow out of control with now 32 forms and about 15 more to go.
By out of control I mean there are 32 form variables declared, 32 cases in the switch statement, 32 cases in another switch statement to close instantiated forms etc. Classic collection territory, but ...well they are forms so it's not something I'm too familiar with "collectivising".
I've considered ways to deal with this, probably a custom collection or something or simply an ArrayList, but I don't want to re-invent the wheel or inadvertantly cause a negative impact on what is actually working fine at the moment, just unwieldy from a development perspective. I've perused the good old 'net and my search terminology must be off because I haven't come across any useful info on this.
Any suggestions or pointers would be appreciated even if it's just to say there is no more efficient way to do this.
Cheers!
-- modified at 19:58 Monday 28th November, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
I always write my WinForm apps using an Outlook-style interface. Now I use the DevExpress libraries which has the very useful TabbedMdiManager which allows you to just create an MDI app and the control lays out the forms like Outlook or Visual Studio's tabbed form interface.
Prior to this, I used a Hashtable to hold my form collection. This is easy if you only allow a single instance of each form, as you can use the form's class name as the key. Otherwise, you need to establish a naming standard to ensure that you are manipulating the correct instance.
|
|
|
|
|
It says that 'The list that this enumerator is bound to has been modified. An enumerator can only be used if the list doesnt change.'
Of course the list will always be changing, so how do i ditch this enumerator thing?
|
|
|
|
|
You're using for each. For each will die when the list changes. You need to build an array of items to remove, then use a for loop to access it from the end to the start, removing the items one at a time.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what is the "best" way to provide a default implementaiton for an interface (without requiring to much typing).
Supose I have a "Document" interface, like
public interface IDocumentInfo
{
String Name { get; set; }
bool IsDirty { get; set; }
...
}
Now the default implementation is pretty straightforward, but I
(a) want to allow customization
(b) not have to clutter up the implementing class with all the method implementations
(c) not make it a base class
The only way I see to achieve both :
public class DocumentInfoImpl : IDocumentInfo
{
String name;
bool isDirty;
String Name { get { return name; } ... }
...
}
public interface IDocumentInfoAccess
{
IDocumentInfo DocumentInfo { get; }
}
public class MyDocument : IDocumentInfoAccess
{
private DocumentInfoDefaultImpl docinfdfltimpl = new DocumentInfoDefaultImpl();
public IDocumentInfo DocumentInfo { get { return docinfdfltimpl; } }
...
}
It feels overkill to have 3 entities, but it's the only thing I see.
what do you think? does it make sense?
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist
|
|
|
|
|
If you just dislike the typing overhead, Visual Studio 2005 implements an interface for you in one single mouse click (right click on the interface name in the class definition -> "implement interface")
modified 12-Sep-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I still have to provide the implementation (even if it's a call-forward to a default member). The source code gets cluttered with "meaningless" code, e.g. in my example the "document state" can be isolated easily (from a design view).
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist
|
|
|
|
|
You said you don't want to make a base class out of it. How about making an extra base class so that implementations are easier while still allowing implementing the interface directly?
public class DocumentInfoBase
{
private string _name;
private bool _isDirty;
public virtual String Name {
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
public virtual bool IsDirty {
get { return _isDirty; }
set { _isDirty = value; }
}
...
}
-- modified at 18:46 Monday 28th November, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
That's how i do it all the time .
Pompiedompiedom... 
"..Commit yourself to quality from day one..it's better to do nothing at all than to do something badly.."
-- Mark McCormick
|
|
|
|
|
right, I could collapse the interface with the default implementaiton - seems OK
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: (c) not make it a base class
Since this requirement rules out using an abstract base class, I think your use of interfaces is the way to go. I see nothing wrong with it. Think of it as polymorphic delegation.
|
|
|
|
|
hi all
i wanted to know the coordinates of the mouse when i move on image in picturebox
this a method but work on the form only i tried it on the picturebox but it doesnt
protected override void OnMouseMove(MouseEventArgs mouseEv)
{
txtMouseX.Text = mouseEv.X.ToString();
txtMouseY.Text = mouseEv.Y.ToString();
}
hope to find solution
thanks in advance
haitham
|
|
|
|
|
As soon as you want to do more than display a picture, you're better off drawing it yourself instead of using a picturebox.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
at first thanks for replying me
i didnt understand wat u mean exactly by drawing it myself(how can i dow that)...can u reply with example?
and how can i make the coordinates of the mouse respond to it
thanks in advance.
haitham
|
|
|
|
|
class MyForm : Form
{
private Bitmap bitmap;
protected void OnPaint(object sender, PaintEventArgs ea)
{
if (bitmap != null)
{
e.Graphics.DrawImage(bitmap, etc
}
}
}
Now you're drawing your own bitmap, and you'll get all the mouse messages, as it's drawn on your form, not on a control on the form.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
I want to just have the process name, even if it still has the brackets around it. But i also have
foreach(Process kill in this.listbox1.SelectedItems)
{
kill.Kill();
}
so the item still needs to be of type 'Process'
Its just the string that the box displays that i want to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Define the following in your project:
public struct ProcessWrapper
{
public ProcessWrapper( Process process ) { p = process; }
public Process p;
public override string ToString() { return p.ProcessName; }
}Now, when you add items to your ListBox, just do the following:
listBox.Add( new ProcessWrapper( p ) ); and everything should look the correct way. Later, in your code, you can do the following:
foreach( ProcessWrapper pw in listbox.SelectedItems )
{
pw.p.Kill();
}That should take care of your needs.
DISCLAIMER: The struct ProcessWrapper does not implement recommended data member hiding and the like. This is really more for your convenience so I did not go into it.
"we must lose precision to make significant statements about complex systems."
-deKorvin on uncertainty
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
