|
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
HI guys which edition of visual studio 2008 can enable developers work on same project at atime. i want my team on a network to be able to work on different aspx pages on the same project. and where can i get full documentation on the edition
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can do this with virtually any edition of Visual Studio - all you need is a decent source configuration tool, and you can get those for free; e.g. Subervsion.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Ebube wrote: HI guys
BTW - this is a sexist remark. There are many women who frequent the forums, so please don't use the masculine form of address.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
|
DoctorMick wrote: PC gone mad?!?!?!
Nope - I just have a lot of respect for the likes of Anna-Jayne, Corrina, the fluffy Tigress and the likes. It's not right to assume they don't have the ability to answer - they are a lot smarter than a lot of the blokes I know. By assuming your target audience is male, you potentially alienate valuable sources of help.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
I aplologise for using Hi guy. i meant the entire forum
|
|
|
|
|
That's all right - you'll remember the next time.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
"Guys" is a perfectly normal way to address a group of people, regardless of sex.
I hear women addressed like this all the time, never heard a complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all!
I want to design and implement an e-voting(electronic voting) system with two computers(one as server and the other as client) under windows;
What technology or programming model do you suggest me for this purpose?
I'm not familiar with network programming models in windows and need help of experience people to introduce me a suitable and applicable programming model and language for this case!
One guy have suggested me to create an ActiveX on client and communicate with server through COM, what do you think about it?
Please help me!!!
Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't ask the same question in multiple forums.
Regards,
Karthik K...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi cp
i am new to CP. Just going to start a project for windows. Taking a quick leap to distributed application too soon.
Just want to know a solution for my scenario
I want to build a new windows distributed application (server/ Client). The client (.NET envoirnment)will be at a remote place outside the city (at any place) that shall be able to interact with the server (.NET envoirnment) for saving or retrieving data. On the server side the same application will be performing same tasks as the client side on LAN. There will be layers such as GUI,DAL,BLL(Bussiness logic), Controller and Data Types
1. Is it possible to have a same windows application at both sides (client and server )as i am presuming it to be?
2. What mechanism will be used for transporting data between the server and client
will it be a static IP address and http or something else i dont know?
3. Windows remorting or Web services will be useful for that?
i hope it will not bother anybody to help me.New to dot net so wanted to share and recieve ideas thanks
Thank every helper
|
|
|
|
|
Zeeshan Riaz wrote: i am new to CP
Just a quick recommendation for posting at CP (and most other places too) seeing as you're new, don't cross post i.e. post basically the same message in multiple forums. Pick one forum that best suits. If you're not sure, then I would post in one, and post a link to that post in another with an explanation that I wasn't sure where to post!
Welcome to CP 
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
Why are you using VB6? Do you hate yourself? (Christian Graus)
|
|
|
|
|
If an application which is configured for single-instance operation is run from a batch file, is there any nice way to control how long the batch file waits and what error code will be returned to it? The best approach I can figure would be to have a pair of programs: a windowed application that runs single-instance, and a console application that runs multi-instance. When run, the console application would invoke the single-instance application with a parameter containing something like a TCP socket. The single-instance application could then pass back the desired error code as well as any messages it would like the console application to display.
My intended use would be that the batch files do operations which may only be done one at a time, and to have the single-instance application sequence the operations, and then remain up after the operations are complete to show their status.
My target platform is .net 2.0. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
a single-instance app never really is single-instance. At best the second, third or whatever instance gets launched, detects it isn't number one, and exits again, hopefully after passing its work to the first instance, maybe by sending its command line through a pipe.
how about you make the "single-instance" such that it:
- detects it isn't the first;
- sends the job to the number one instance;
- instead of exiting right away, waits for completion.
Doing it that way your batch files don't have to be aware, they would always seem to be talking to the single-instance app.
BTW: obviously you can use the Main() method's return value as the batch/DOS exit code.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
What's the best way of achieving such a result in vb.net (I'm using 2005 at the moment)? Are there any nice template examples to borrow from?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
What part are you having trouble with? What have you done so far?
Anyway I use C# most of the time, so I don't have VB.NET code handy for you.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never actually done an application with a Main() under vb.net, and the only way I've confined applications to single-instance operation is via check-box in the project options. I know that Microsoft added support for named pipes in .net 3.5, but for the moment I'm working with VS2005 and .net 2.0 which does not include the built-in support.
FYI, if the "single-instance operation" box is checked in vb, the first-run instance of the application will receive a special event when an attempt is made to launch additional instances; it will receive the command line from the new instance. Very convenient, but I don't know how to have the second instance delay completion and return a particular error code. It will probably be necessary to write a custom Main() to accomplish that, or else go with a two-application approach. The only advantage to the latter would be the ability to have the command-line-launched part show text in the command-prompt window. By my understanding, windowed applications can't do that (unless I'm mistaken?) In response to something like "progger /?" it is often nicer to show a program's options in the command-prompt window than to pop up another window listing them (the exception being if there are over 24 lines of options). It's also nice to see a 'list' in the command-prompt window of what worked and what didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
OK, once more too much C# was popping up in my thinking and reply.
What I called Main() would be whatever piece of your VB.NET code gets in charge first.
I keep forgetting Visual for VB has special single-instance support. I don't know any details, I never used it; if I were interested, I would launch Reflector and have a peek inside.
Most of my C# toolbox was created in either 1.1 or 2.0; when building for 3.x it is bound to contain P/Invoke for a couple of things that now can be handled natively. I do use P/Invoke for named pipes, as I still often build for 2.0
In order to achieve the scheme I proposed in VB.NET you most likely would have to forgo the built-in "single-instance" support, and create your own.
supercat9 wrote: windowed applications can't do that
Yes, it is unfortunately true. The PE file format has a single bit that chooses between:
- a console app, which needs a console to run; when launched in a command prompt/DOS window, it will use that; otherwise it will create its own console window. Your app can create forms and look very much like a WinForm app, however it is a console app. It can hide its own console, but only after it has been shown briefly resulting in an ugly flash.
- a non-console app. Now it again can crate forms and be a real WinForm app, or it can choose not to, and maybe show up in the systray. What it can't do is perform input/output to a command prompt/DOS window that maybe launched it.
I have been struggling with this for some time, as I wanted to create apps that:
- when a command line is present, behave as console apps (so you can use them silently in a batch file);
- when a command line isn't present, behave as WinForm apps (so you can use them interactively).
And I didn't want to create, maintain and distribute two EXEs, one for each purpose.
I had to give up, IMO this historical dichotomy has proven to be a major Windows blunder.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
And I didn't want to create, maintain and distribute two EXEs, one for each purpose.
I wonder whether it would be practical to have a "universal console application" which creates a TCP socket and then launches the other real application, prepending to the command line arguments the identity of the newly-created socket? The other application would exchange its I/O with the socket, and the console ap would send it to the console.
If the two applications had a consistent naming convention, one would have to distribute both exe's but the console side application wouldn't have to be maintained.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
interesting idea.
I'm not inclined to use TCP/IP for local purposes as it may pose problems selecting channels, avoiding conflicts, configuring firewalls, etc; risks which aren't necessary as you can use named pipes equally well. And you need only one per singleton.
So the singleton-enforcer could be a console app with the following syntax:
enforce1 filename.exe command_line_arguments
This enforce1 would:
1. algorithmically derive a pipe name form the filename.exe
2. look for a process P currently executing filename.exe, and if none found, launch filename.exe as a process P without arguments;
3. send its process ID and the command_line_arguments to P
4. wait for a return status, which I would transmit using a Windows message (based on PID).
all of the above is independent of the exe's functionality. enforce1 is general-purpose.
the target exe should ignore its command line; it must open and listen to the named pipe (again derived from the EXE name), expect to receive a PID+command line, and when done send a Windows message to process P with given PID to return the 32-bit result status; and loop waiting for another piped command. It may or may not use multithreading to perform several jobs concurrently.
The piped message is a command line, that should be short enough to be atomic. So all enforcers can send to the same pipe without fearing collisions/confusion.
One might consider a non-console version of the enforcer too.
BTW: all of this does not solve my earlier quest for a single exe offering an app that acts as both console and non-console, since 1) it is two or three EXE (one universal), and 2) the console part is universal, hence ignorant of the actual application (it can't provide help for instance).
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
enforce1 filename.exe command_line_arguments
If the main application file name were derived from the command-line-app name, one could use absolutely identical command-line apps for any number of programs. The only time the console app would have to provide any "help" would be if the system couldn't find the main application, in which case a message to that effect should probably be sufficient.
BTW, I vaguely recall an article which discussed having one application named xxx.com and the other xxx.exe but I don't remember exactly what the author was doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I basically have a RichTextBox (WinForms) and I want to have spell check functionality.
I have been using NetSpell[^] which is very good for an open source solution but have found it does not work with rich text formatted data. Being open source I can probably modify to suite my needs but that may take time I do not currently have.
I have also found Rapid Spell[^] which seems perfect for what I want, but the price is $339 so I am looking for alternative, cheaper solutions if possible.
Basically, does anybody know of a good product they could recommend from experience that will achieve what I am looking for? I have been looking but as of yet not found anything to top Rapid Spell.
Thanks
Life goes very fast. Tomorrow, today is already yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
How about using any spellchecker on the RichTextBox.Text content; and when something gets rejected try and locate it in the RTB to flag it somehow.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get.
Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
