|
|
the page load event gets fires, but it just skips the SelectedIndexChanged event for the dropdown
|
|
|
|
|
What, where, how? Please edit your question and add some proper detail about what is happening in your code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So this is an extension of the my last post about sending emails async.
I have these asmx web services, and they record the transaction, send an eamil message and return a JSON formatted string back to the client script written in JQuery.
When I run the code in WebDev, All is well, and I stop at the last line that returns the JSON String, and it looks good. But for some reason, the JQuery Ajax success can't parse or see the return object.
The message sends, database gets updated, just the return value get lost, malformed, or something.
I can't seem to figure it out.
So this is just a example of what I did with the service.
<WebMethod(EnableSession:=True)> _
Public Async Function send_Reply( _
ByVal m_messageID As String) As Threading.Tasks.Task(Of String)
Dim _task as _smtptask - Await sendMessageAsync(model)
updateDatabase(model)
archiveMessage(model)
Await sendMessageAsync(model)
Return json_response.ToString
End function
|
|
|
|
|
Well after using IE? and the debugger, I saw that my data was in another object below the typical object which was "d". Now it's "d.Result"
I read some articles and they all say can't be done. Don't even try it, so I'm not sure what to think here.
I Forget to mention that I was using 4.51. It works, not sure if any weird stuff will happen so I won't marked it as solved.
What do you think?
Before:
success: function (data) {
var objB = jQuery.parseJSON(data.d);
var result_Value = objB.result_Value;
var m_emailName = unescape(objB.m_emailName.replace(/\+/g, ' '));
After:
success: function (data) {
var objB = jQuery.parseJSON(data.d.Result);
var result_Value = objB.result_Value;
var m_emailName = unescape(objB.m_emailName.replace(/\+/g, ' '));
|
|
|
|
|
Tool: Visual Studio 2012, Windows 7.
Application: Console Application (Both : Client & Server).
I have created one Client(HttpClient) Application and One Server(HttpListener) Application to Interact with Each Other on the same Machine. Now I want to secure transaction between this client server using Open SSL. How to do it?
I know Both HttpClient and HttpListener support HTTPS but I want to explore Open SSL architecture, its workflow and security to HttpClient-Server application.
Actually I am totally new for OpenSSL. It will be my first application with Open SSL.
How to setup and use Open SSL to this applications?
I have downloaded openssl-1.0.2h.tar.gz, openssl-1.0.2h-i386-win32.zip, asc, sha1 and sha256 files from Open SSL and Binaries.
|
|
|
|
|
Best option would be to study the documentation; see OpenSSL[^].
|
|
|
|
|
please discuss with some sample scenario that when some one has to put resource files in App_GlobalResources folder and when some one has to put resource files in App_LocalResources folder?
what would be file name convention of resource files in App_GlobalResources folder and App_LocalResources folder ?
tbhattacharjee
|
|
|
|
|
Google broken again?
Global resource files are available to any page or component in your Web site. Local resource files are associated with a single Web page, user control, or master page, and contain the resources for only that page.
You create a global resource file by putting it in the reserved folder App_GlobalResources at the root of the application.
...
You put local resource files in folders that have the reserved name App_LocalResources. Unlike the root App_GlobalResources folder, App_LocalResources folders can be in any folder in the application. You associate a set of resources files with a specific Web page by using the name of the resource file.
For example, if you have a page named Default.aspx in the App_LocalResources folder, you might create the following files:
Default.aspx.resx. This is the default local resource file (the fallback resource file) if no language match is found.Default.aspx.es.resx. This is the resource file for Spanish, without culture information.Default.aspx.es-mx.resx. This is the resource file for Spanish (Mexico) specifically.Default.aspx.fr.resx. This is the resource file for French, without culture information.
The base name of the file matches the page file name, followed by a language and culture name, and ending with the extension .resx.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
@Richardd Deeming thanks a lot.
here u said what will be the file name convention for App_LocalResources folder. you said -->
Quote: For example, if you have a page named Default.aspx in the App_LocalResources folder, you might create the following files:
Default.aspx.resx. This is the default local resource file (the fallback resource file) if no language match is found.
Default.aspx.es.resx. This is the resource file for Spanish, without culture information.
Default.aspx.es-mx.resx. This is the resource file for Spanish (Mexico) specifically.
Default.aspx.fr.resx. This is the resource file for French, without culture information.
suppose i have two folder like UK and FR and both folder has index.aspx file then how to create localize resource file for index file in UK folder and FR folder. guide me with instruction.
here you said file name convention for creating resource file in Quote: App_LocalResources
folder but you did not mention what will be the file name convention in Quote: App_GlobalResources
folder.
looking for your further suggestion. thanks
tbhattacharjee
|
|
|
|
|
The file name conventions are same for both local and global. You need to review your design of pages. In you UK and FR folders both could share a same global resource.
|
|
|
|
|
hii sir
i want upload image in my page that time image already use in rename to image
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
hiii sir
i want to uploads the image and the image of the same name has already snapped images then rename.
|
|
|
|
|
What is your question?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to design an .NET MVC application and the application needs to access data from multiple databases. I the only way to do the low level database I/O is by calling MS SQL stored procedures. What I think is the best way to go is to develop the data layer using a combination of WCF as the lowest level calling the actual stored procedures. From there I feel that an Entity Framework layer be setup to be used for the actual MVC design. Can anyone give me a few I ideas to the best way for a successful design?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, I have read several articles about doing all of the data access using a Entity Framework design with multiple DAL implentations. Mine is very problematic. I have many databases that all applications share and poor relational design. What I am hoping to do is find out the best way have a WCF project make the very complex stored procedure calls then having a single entity fromework DAL loading it's entities by calling the WCF endpoint requests. I have looked at a few articles about doing this and think this might be the best way to go. I just want to make sure I do it right and if in fact that's the best way to go at all.
modified 13-May-16 15:35pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I just found out about a helper that I thought would do the job but still doesn't. The helper is called Ninject. This allows you to create a data access design where different databases can be called from the same framework component by using a different helper class that conforms to a shared interface with separate connections in the single data access framework module. The problem with mine is my stored procedures do database joins from within that single stored procedure. I don't think Ninject will work.
|
|
|
|
|
Ninject is for dependency injection, which is a good practice but does not address your current need.
Gerry suggested having a look at EF, and I would personally agree. You can bind EF to a Stored procedure, if that's where you heart is, or to tables. You can also have multiple database contexts with multiple connection strings. I would also advise that you take a look at it.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan,
I agree that doing the database joins from entity framework is the correct way to go. Now, the biggest problem is the stored procedures not only do table joins but also access several database views. The relational design of these databases is crazy. I have a team that are writing all of the database stored procedures but what I can't find is an example of a SQL stored procedure doing the actual database joins for the entity framework model. Also, how would the additional views play into this? I do see how it is done directly in Entity Framework but if someone has an example of the the SQL stored procedure entity join syntax that would be very helpful.
modified 15-May-16 16:58pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You're looking at it incorrectly.
When you handle objects in Entity Framework, the underlying SQL is abstracted and, frankly, immaterial. You can treat a table, SP, or view in exactly the same manner, they're mapped out in the .edmx file. Since you're clearly using Database first, you'll want a look at Entity Framework Relationships - EF Designer[^]. In Entity Framework there aren't really "Joins" (since that's more of a database concept) there are "Associations" (as a more OOP concept) that are defined in your application, and parsed into joins by Entity Framework when querying the data source.
What this allows you to do is ignore the relational structure of the database and implement your own within the confines of your application. It doesn't change the database itself, just how your application looks at it. The best part is that it doesn't lean on the database to provide those details; ie the implementation of a store procedure has no impact on the functionality of Entity Framework.
For my money, it's generally best to use tables as a data source, but that's not always possible. In my mind it gives the purest look at the current state of the data and avoids some of the "gotchas" that can creep up when calling code (functions or SPs) rather than the data itself, or the holes that are often created by views. As a final caveat, tables are the only clean way to write transactions to the database. You can use Functions or Stored Procedures for that, but the implementation and business rules are dependent on the DBA, and I'm not a giant fan of handing off application critical items to a third party; at least in a data-driven, enterprise system. If those are your only options, though, you can work with them seamlessly.
Regardless of the underlying method used to derive the data, it is consumed in exactly the same way in an application context. You will have a collection of entities, defined as classes in your application, mapped to the database by your .edmx file, and instantiated as called by Entity Framework.
So the short answer (that I meandered greatly from) is that it doesn't matter what a Stored Procedures looks like or how it is invoked, as long as it exposes the data that you need in your application, to include the data that you need to form concrete Associations.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan,
I think I understand and was making things more complicated then they are. Because the stored procedure uses a main database to pull back the data then I only need to map to that one database an not worry about the other databases or views that the stored procedure it pulls from. I am sorry for all of the posts back and forth I have causes but now I have learned something I did not know before. Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
