|
Yes, Collection is better choice.
protected override void RemoveItem(int index) {}
Collection doesn't have RemoveItem(object item) method to override....
so couldn't raise remove event, on removing by object.....
any fix for this?
Thanks in Advance
Anand
|
|
|
|
|
If all you want to do is raise an event, you should probably just use ObservableCollection, which does raise events on add/insert, remove, and setting items. The Remove(T item) will call the protected overridable RemoveItem(int index) after figuring out the proper index, that's why only one is overridable.
|
|
|
|
|
hi
i need to know what is component based development is? and how to start analysing and working on it, give me url links for starting with component based architeture.
|
|
|
|
|
sathimailin1 wrote: i need to know what is component based development is
A search on the internet returned the definion on the wiki site.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your reply
i got the same link but i need to know how to start designing and implementing CBD in .NET
|
|
|
|
|
sathimailin1 wrote: i got the same link but i need to know how to start designing and implementing CBD in .NET
It's not something that you build, but a way of building something. Some of those idea's are described in this[^] book 
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm trying to retrieve an AppSetting, yet following the instructions in the articles, this is what I have:
string debug = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["Debug"];
In the app.config file I see this:
<applicationSettings>
<MP3_Merger.Properties.Settings>
<setting name="Debug" serializeAs="String">
<value>true</value>
</setting>
</MP3_Merger.Properties.Settings>
</applicationSettings>
The code executes, however it always comes back as null. I've been spinning my wheels for four hours trying to do something simple. I'm missing something, but I don't know what. I have tried setting a break point in the "getter" code in the settings code, but we never seem to get there.
Any help is appreciated.
Thank you,
Glenn
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
This should be very straightforward, try
string debug = Properties.Settings.Default.Debug;
Alan.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much, that worked like a champ!!
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
I'm working on a program which needs to partition (i.e. fdisk) and format the filesystems on a USB flash drive.
I've been looking for methods in the .NET namespace which would implement those functions, but I'm not finding them.
So, does .NET provide methods for partitioning and formatting hard disks?
Should I be wrapping the fdisk.exe and format.exe command line tools?
Is there another (better) method I should be looking at?
Thanks,
Ron Aldrich
Software Architects, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Aldrich wrote: I've been looking for methods in the .NET namespace which would implement those functions, but I'm not finding them.
You did not search enough  .
See here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Should I be wrapping the fdisk.exe and format.exe command line tools?
Is there another (better) method I should be looking at?
There is no alternative method in .Net Frame work ,
you have to invoke fdisk.exe/format.exe from your application using
System.Disgonisics.Process.
Rajesh B --> A Poor Workman Blames His Tools <--
|
|
|
|
|
I want to get Default Windows Forms Unhandled-Exception Dialog whenever my C# application encounters U-E.
In vs 2005 when I turn off jit Debugging in app.conf like this:
<configuration>
<system.windows.forms jitDebugging="false" />
<configuration>
the application behaves correctly and shows Windows Forms U-E default dialog, with Continue, Quit, call stack and all.
However in vs 2008, on the same machine or different, even though I diable jit I still get Default .NET Unhandled-Exception Dialog, with Debug, Send Report and Don't Send buttons.
How can I make my vs 2008 app act like the one I make in vs 2005, to show Windows Forms U-E dialog box?
Any help is appreciated
-- Modified Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
How about maybe handling the exceptions in the first place.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your prompt reply. I know what you mean and yes I handle all I can, however I want to know why Windows Forms U-E dialog box is not showing up in 2008, since we are not ideal and still there could be unhandled exception in the big projects. This will also help to make them handled.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
souren77 wrote: I handle all I can
That should be 100% then.
You can capture unhandled exceptions. AppDomain.UnhandledException Event[^]
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Mark, I don't do any custom UnhandledException processing in the code neither for vs 2005 project nor for vs 2008 project. It's same simple application just to find out the mistery. However, the last one does not show Windows Forms Unhandled-Exception Dialog.
In other words, I know I can capture myself Unhandled Exceptions, but I want to engage .NET default capture mechanism for windows form unhandled exceptions.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
souren77 wrote: I want to engage .NET default capture mechanism for windows form unhandled exceptions.
Why?
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
One of the reasons I like the default message box formatting, look and feel.
Why would I design this:
http://i26.tinypic.com/23i8adw.jpg
if it's a part of CLR, at least when I'm using vs 2005 to build an app and all I need is to figure out why it's not being called. I've googled a lot really past 2 days for it. I know I could have write my handler, but I need to get to the bottom really, it drives me crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Such dialog provides technical information only. It does not help your customer, as it does not reflect which action of his went wrong, nor does it help him in remedying. And it does not help the developer once the app is in the field, as it does not log anything. So IMO that kind of dialog is to be avoided, except maybe, just maybe, during the early development phase. You really should catch exceptions and either deal with them, or show the user something he can understand and work with; and log it.
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience it helped a lot exactly in the field. So the user can pass me some information instead of telling that application is crashed. And to gather dump I have to do something on my own.
Stack trace information is very useful.
catching exception, logging and understanding is good in more mature stages of application. Like you said on early stages sometimes you need something quick.
|
|
|
|
|
souren77 wrote: good in more mature stages of application.
souren77 wrote: the user can pass me some information instead of telling that application is crashed.
These two statements don't correlate. At more matures stages an application is not shipped to customers with unhandled exceptions. What app do you ship? I'd like to avoid them.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Nischalke wrote: How about maybe handling the exceptions in the first place.
Some of the built-in classes throw exceptions in their own threads (serialPort seems to be nasty for this). How should one trap such an exception?
|
|
|
|
|
the SerialPort events run on a ThreadPool thread; what would keep you from having an overall try-catch in their event handler?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
