|
i have a pdf in my form and i want to cover him with a transparent control to deny the user to interact with him because i want to deny him to print and save the pdf.
i tried multiple libraries to set this security but the failed with the new adobe reader that comes with a little toolbar right a the bottom of each page (on mouse over) so the user can save and print the pdf.
|
|
|
|
|
Um.
You do realize that any protection you introduce like that can be got round in about half a dozen mouse clicks? For example, Chrome provides both "Inspect element" and "View source" which would either get the complete text or the url which links to the PDF. With that, it would be a simple matter to download it in the normal way...
What are you trying to do that you think an "untouchable" PDF file is a good solution?
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
That's handled by the security settings in the PDF document. What you're doing is just a hairbrained scheme that is easily defeated by about half a dozen ways that I can think of in about 5 seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
first,the security in the PDF document didn't work (using 4 different libraries) with this little toolbar at the bottom,second how you can defeat this in 5 second? i deny you to reach the PDF to save it,it's not a web application that you can use developer tool or firebug or .. to reach the PDF,it's windows form application
|
|
|
|
|
jokercocol wrote: first,the security in the PDF document didn't work (using 4 different libraries)
How about Acrobat?? Works perfectly. 3rd party libraries usually don't have great support for the security features, if at all.
jokercocol wrote: i deny you to reach the PDF to save it,it's not a web application that you can
use developer tool or firebug or .. to reach the PDF,it's windows form
application
Hehe. Actually, I CAN defeat it. Since it's Windows Forms and not a web page, it'll take a bit longer, but still very much under a minute. Yes, I already have the tool written to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone
We use of "Add New Data Source" (in the visual studio) and then select a dataset for connect a database in the C#, Is it possible to make a new database in the "Add Connection" window instead "Select or enter a database name"?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have searched on the internet and it looks like nobody tests it and its first time,could you test it ,please(it doesnt get many times)?I enter the new name in the "Select or enter a database name" field and it asks of me:"The database "mydatabse" does not exist or you do not have permission to see it.Would you like to attempt to create it? when you click ok it makes it!
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations! You tried it and found that you could. You answered your own question. What exactly does this have to do with C#?
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Because I'm going to do it on the C# and I want to know Im on the correct way or no,Wes Aday(are you Gondolf? )
|
|
|
|
|
messages wrote: correct way or no
No this is not the correct way. Your question has absolutely nothing to do with C#. And most likely you are not going to be creating databases in C#.
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
|
|
|
|
|
messages wrote: the correct way or no
No. The better way is to use a database creation script. If it is really needed to be done, then the C# application would run the database creation script and create the database for you through SQL Server. Most of the time, a database should already exist and have been created before you even write any application code.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Uh huh. It probably only supports SQL Server and I doubt it gives you any control of the settings. As such it's not a good way to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
When we create database connection in C# lets say to SQl server, why it is recommended to use connection statements within using? I know using makes CLR reclaims memory when control is coming outside of using by calling Dispose(). But SQL server connection should be a managed code and using is usually used for unmanaged code. I mean we create SQL Server connection objects from .NET libraries, so why is unmanaged? Really looking for answer.
Favourite quote:
In youth we learn, In age we understand.
|
|
|
|
|
munishk wrote: using is usually used for unmanaged code.
Hehe, as you said yourself, it's not limited to unmanaged code.
munishk wrote: I mean we create SQL Server connection objects from .NET libraries, so why is unmanaged?
Unmanaged code often holds handles, and other stuff that needs to get rid of "exactly once". A library is loaded once, and unloaded once.
For a SqlConnection it adds other benefits; not only does it close the connection once the object gets disposed (something that should be done "once" again, in a destructor-type method), it also clears the largest fields (and disposes embedded disposables), helping the GC.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: For a SqlConnection it adds other benefits; not only does it close the connection...
Not generally it doesn't. It returns the connection to the pool. If the pool is configured explicitly (non-default settings) then it will.
|
|
|
|
|
But can we say that creating sqlconnection is unmanaged resource? This is even stated in Albhahari book too. I am still looking for clear answers.
Favourite quote:
In youth we learn, In age we understand.
|
|
|
|
|
There's got to be unmanaged objects deep in there somewhere -- named pipes, network sockets, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
munishk wrote: But can we say that creating sqlconnection is unmanaged resource?
No you can't say that because it is managed class.
At some point that class or some other part of the .Net API (not visible) is interacting with unmanaged resources. Just as many other managed classes do.
However that has nothing to do with your use of it.
|
|
|
|
|
munishk wrote: SQL server connection should be a managed code
Why should the connection be managed code?
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy
Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
|
|
|
|
|
using is not just for unmanaged code - in fact I almost never write unmanaged code, and I use using all the time.
What is does is ensure that the object created in the using block header is Disposed at the end, exactly as if it had been written as
MyObject mo = new MyObject();
...
mo.Dispose(): In fact, a using block is just a syntactic sugar for just that, but with the added advantage that it terminates the scope of the variable as well, so you can't accidentally use the Disposed object.
Why do I use it? It's clean, it's clear, and it de-scopes a variable when I can't use it again.
Why is it important to Dispose managed objects? Because some of them hold resources: for example, Bitmaps, Files and so forth hang on to resources such as handles and file access locks until the object is disposed - in the case of a Bitmap it is not at all obvious that:
Image i = Image.FromFile(path); puts a file access lock on the image source file until the image is Disposed. So if you use this to load an image, let the user modify it and then try to save it again, the file may or may not still be in use...annoying. Surrounding the Image creating with a using block removes this problem.
If an object supports IDisposable, then Dispose should be called on it. And a using block is the easiest, cleanest way to do that.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
|
munishk wrote: why it is recommended to use connection statements within using?
It isn't; I don't do it that way anyway. I dislike code that keeps instantiating and disposing Connections and Commands over and over again for no good reason. I prefer to instantiate each once and hold onto it for the duration -- opening and closing the Connection as needed, setting the CommandText, etc. But that's because of the type of systems I write; your systems may not benefit from it.
Additionally, I wrap Connections and Commands in my own classes which implement IDisposable, so when it makes sense to (mostly console utilities) I instantiate my class with a using statement:
using
(
PIEBALD.Data.IDatabase db
=
new PIEBLAD.Data.SqlServerDatabase
(
...
)
)
{
...
}
|
|
|
|
|
As per the the title, I am taking over a project from QIOS DevSuite which included many useful free controls such as a Winforms Ribbon Control etc..
I want to keep this control free to the public, but I can't do it all on my own!! The reason for my post is, I am trying to build a community of volunteers to help with future development (like how phpbb is developed now) and support.
Currently QIOS have taken the control off line, but they have so far provided me with the forum and previous data etc.. So, if this is of interest as a small hobby then please get in contact with me at www.forum.qdevsuite.com.
Here is a link to screen shot of the qdevsuite http://www.qdevsuite.com/home3.gif[^]
Thank you
Dan
(Mods please delete if I have broken any rules, Sorry!)
|
|
|
|
|
Santa's Little Helper wrote: (Mods please delete if I have broken any rules, Sorry!)
Whehe, yeah, just post blindly and let the mods clean up after you.
You should have posted in the collaboration-section, the menu is on the left side of your screen 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
