|
Well, you're posting a java question in a C# forum, ya get what you pay for... so here's one of many C# solutions.......
Serialize the iframe instance, store it in a binary database field
If iframe isn't Serializable, make your own class that inherits iframe and use that instead
Here's an example of how to do something similar. note, when serializing something, it's best to just serialize the data structure and rebuild the class from that
Using Serialization to Persist TreeView Control (VB.NET)[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to add a range of arrays to al istview from 3 files. My arrays are decalred as:
string[] sn = File.ReadAllLines("serverList.txt");
string[] sl = File.ReadAllLines("serverLocation.txt");
string[] st = File.ReadAllLines("serverType.txt");
But when I use:
ListViewItem lvi = new ListViewItem();
lvi = lv.Items.AddRange(sn);
lvi.SubItems.AddRange(sl);
lvi.SubItems.AddRange(st);
Its tells me the addrange taked invalid arguments, why?
|
|
|
|
|
The AddRange[^] method has two overloads, one takes in a ListViewItemCollection object and the other takes in a Generic Array of ListViewItem objects.
You are trying to pass a string array which cannot be implicity convered to either of the required objects stated above.
To acheive what you are trying to do, you must iterate through the string arrays, build a List<ListViewItem> object and pass it to the AddRange method.
|
|
|
|
|
ListView.Items.Add() is horridly slow. So you're onto the right idea when adding a lot of things
This may help you
ArrayList al = new ArrayList();
foreach ()
{
ListViewItem lvi = new ListViewItem();
lvi.Text = "This is a ListView Item";
lvi.SubItems.Add("This is for 2nd column text when ListView.View == Details");
lvi.SubItems.Add("This is for 3rd column text when ListView.View == Details");
al.Add(lvi);
}
Type t = typeof(ListViewItem);
this._listView.SuspendLayout();
this._listView.Items.AddRange(al.ToArray(t) as ListViewItem[]);
this._listView.ResumeLayout();
That's the general idea behind AddRange(). It speeds things up when adding ListViewItems.
Depending on what you want your output to look like, take the above and modify it to build up some ArrayLists from your string[] fields
|
|
|
|
|
There are some simple ways to add a ListViewItem: (this example assumes a ListView with four columns defined, and View = Details):
listView1.Items.Add(new ListViewItem(new[] { "1", "2", "3", "4" }));My guess is there's some neat trick involving Linq where you could take the three lists the OP describes and get them into usable shape (but that's beyond my weirding-powers)  .
best, Bill
"Is it a fact - or have I dreamt it - that, by means of electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time? Rather, the round globe is a vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence!" - Nathanial Hawthorne, House of the Seven Gables
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I heard sth about the programs written by .net language like C# or VB.net which was this that the sources of these programs can be Easily undrestood. Means if you create an application with .Net then a cracker can Esaily get the source of your app with no limitation, All of the source codes!!!! this is really bad! IS IT TRUE?!?!
im just worried about that. i dont want the complete source of some programs (alothough simple) that i programs be in hands of some crakcers. and i heard that the source of programs written by languages for example like Delphi or python can not be decompiled completely! is .Net this much unsafe??!?!?!
BTW i don't want to use any Protector.
if it is true tell me plz and if there is any way to not to allow crackers access to ur codes.
Thanks ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
There are numerous obfuscation solutions available for .NET applications, including a free version of one that comes with Visual Studio, and then there are 3rd. party controls ranging from less expensive to pricey.
And last, there are hardware solutions, like dongles.
Suggest you do some research on the web about what's available rather than listening to rumors.
best, Bill
"Is it a fact - or have I dreamt it - that, by means of electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time? Rather, the round globe is a vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence!" - Nathanial Hawthorne, House of the Seven Gables
|
|
|
|
|
There are tools specifically designed to make reverse engineering harder.
But yes it is kind of easy.
On the other hand think about the fact that windows, games.. get craked all the time.
Having the skills and some time everything can be reversed engineered.
So, one could make it harder for hackers to crack their code, but IMO there is no such thing as irreversible/uncrackable code.
All the best,
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Hemati wrote: sth
Not a word.
Hamed Hemati wrote: can be Easily undrestood
So what?
Hamed Hemati wrote: this is really bad
No it isn't.
Hamed Hemati wrote: IS IT TRUE
Yes, but not exactly.
Hamed Hemati wrote: im just worried about that
Don't.
Hamed Hemati wrote: i dont want the complete source of some programs (alothough simple) that i
programs be in hands of some crakcers
I only publish source code anyway.
Hamed Hemati wrote: is .Net this much unsafe
There is nothing unsafe about it.
modified on Friday, September 2, 2011 8:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
that made me want some bacon.... 
|
|
|
|
|
My vote of #1 on this "answer." All you have done is make fun of the OP; for what ?
"Is it a fact - or have I dreamt it - that, by means of electricity, the world of matter has become a great nerve, vibrating thousands of miles in a breathless point of time? Rather, the round globe is a vast head, a brain, instinct with intelligence!" - Nathanial Hawthorne, House of the Seven Gables
|
|
|
|
|
No I didn't, I clearly stated my opinion, which I believe is held by many.
|
|
|
|
|
They won't have comments or the original local variable names. So .NET languages can also not be decompiled completely.
Furthermore, your anti-cracker defense should not rely on their ability to read your code, because they can do so anyway. If the CPU can execute the code, then a cracker can read the code. You can slow them down at best.
If you have sensitive code that absolutely must not be read by crackers, you can hide it behind a webservice.
|
|
|
|
|
Sort of (it is a necessary evil of using a good framework and a virtual machine like Java or .Net, the IL is much more easily read than machine assembler). There are also disassemblers for conventional languages, so nothing is entirely safe – unless you hide it behind a web service call, as someone else mentioned.
An obfuscator can help by making more of the internal method calls, classes etc hard to read, and hiding values to avoid search-based finding of critical code. But if someone tries hard enough, they can virtually 'run' your program and reverse engineer it, whatever language you write it in, if you give them the program. (If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be executable.)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a gripe and a question, maybe someone can help me
Problem Scenario:
I just upgraded to Visual Studio 2010 Professional. I noticed some wierd things happening and after troubleshooting came up with this scenario
Create a C# Windows Form Application in Visual Studio 2005 Professional
Create a C# Windows Form Application in Visual Studio 2010 Professional
Identical code in each
namespace WindowsFormsApplication2
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
}
}
Visual Studio 2005
uncomment the 'throw' statement in the Form1 constructor. Visual Studio will report the exception and halt the code.
uncomment the 'throw' statement in the Form1_Load event handler. Visual Studio will report the exception and halt the code
Visual Studio 2010
uncomment the 'throw' statement in the Form1 constructor. Visual Studio will report the exception and halt the code.
uncomment the 'throw' statement in the Form1_Load event handler. Visual Studio silently aborts the method and continues running the code
This means that, in VS2010, in order to stop on , for example, a System.NullReferenceException that I threw, I have to check the "Thrown" box in the Exceptions configuration (cntrl+shift+E). Doing this causes it to stop on *every* System.NullReferenceException, even ones that are swallowed by a try/catch block.
I want VS2010 to act like 2005. Halt on any Exception that isn't explicitly delt with by a try/catch block, even Exceptions that I throw myself.
I don't get why it will halt on an explicit throw in the Forms constructor, but silently abort the method when thrown in the event handler. I find myself constantly reconfiguring the Exceptions config screen when something unexpected occurs (usually when an exception happens that I don't know about)
Am I doing something wrong or is this just something I need to adapt to?
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds pretty odd. I'm sure there is no native difference in the way the two versions of Visual Studio handle exceptions in the debugger. Don't quite understand what you were saying about the exceptions configuration, but try this: In both environments, go to Exceptions configuration as you say (cntrl+shift+E).
In both cases, there should be two columns of checkboxes 'Thrown' and 'User-unhandled'. If you've only got one column go to Tools->Options->Debugging->General and make sure 'Enable just my code' is chcked. Then, make sure the two columns in the two environments match.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply
You are correct when I'm talking about the "Exceptions Configuration" i'm referring to Dialog Box that you access via Cntrl+Alt+E (sorry I gave wrong shortcut in the original post)
I verified using your method.
Here's the strange bit. At home I have WIndows 7 64 bit, at work I have Windows 7 32 bit
I just did a little test where i made a new C# WindowsApplication project.
The work PC halted on the "throw new Exception()" in the Form1_Load handler, but the home PC did not.
|
|
|
|
|
Sardaan Frostreaver wrote: even ones that are swallowed by a try/catch block.
Do you seriously write code that swallows exceptions in production?
|
|
|
|
|
While I appreciate what you're saying, in the interest of preventing a debate on exception handling, let's keep the scope in context
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting material. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
That's it!
Here's the C# signatures to implement his solution
public const uint PROCESS_CALLBACK_FILTER_ENABLED = 1;
[DllImport("kernel32.DLL")]
public static extern bool SetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(uint dwFlags);
[DllImport("kernel32.DLL")]
public static extern bool GetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(ref uint lpFlags);
uint dwFlags = 0;
if (StormWindows.Win32Api.GetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(ref dwFlags))
{
SetProcessUserModeExceptionPolicy(dwFlags & ~PROCESS_CALLBACK_FILTER_ENABLED);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you SO much for this link.
I was, as the article described, pulling my hair out why and how a first-chance unhandled exception caused my program to silently crash in debug mode.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
