Search Results

Search found 9 results on 1 pages for 'klausbyskov'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • RadWindow AlwaysOnTop

    - by klausbyskov
    Does anyone have any experience with the RadWindow wpf control from Telerik? My problem is that when I open a RadWindow and minimize my application then when I maximize the application the RadWindow is not visible. I can use alt+tab to get the RadWindow in front again, but I would really like to avoid having to do this. I'm doing the following to display the RadWindow: this.theWindow.ShowDialog(); Where theWindow is an instance of a class that inherits from RadWindow. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Code analysis: Global project/assembly suppression

    - by klausbyskov
    I have several CA1704:IdentifiersShouldBeSpelledCorrectly warnings that I want to suppress. Basically they refer to the company name which is deemed to be spelled incorrectly. The company name is part of several namespaces in my project, and in order to suppress all the warnings I need to add a lot of suppressions to the GlobalSuppressions file. Is there any way to suppress all warning in a single line in order to aviod my GlobalSuppressions file to become overly cluttered?

    Read the article

  • What is the WCF equivalent?

    - by klausbyskov
    I am trying to port some code that is based on WSE3.0 to WCF. Basically, the old code has the following configuration: <microsoft.web.services3> <diagnostics> <trace enabled="true" input="InputTrace.webinfo" output="OutputTrace.webinfo" /> </diagnostics> <tokenIssuer> <statefulSecurityContextToken enabled="false" /> </tokenIssuer> </microsoft.web.services3> When calling the same service through my "Service Reference" I get this error: Request does not contain required Security header My binding looks like this: <basicHttpBinding> <binding name="LegalUnitGetBinding" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00" allowCookies="false" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferSize="65536" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" transferMode="Buffered" useDefaultWebProxy="true"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <security mode="Transport"> </security> </binding> </basicHttpBinding> From what I have understood, the service I'm calling only requires an SSL connection, since it receives a username and password as part of a request parameter. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Top 3 reasons not to develop a "blog system" that generates aspx files on the fly.

    - by klausbyskov
    In this question the OP implies that he wants to base the blog system he is developing on automatic creation of .aspx files, one for each new blog entry. In my answer to his question (which is related to something else), I told him that I would discourage him from using such an approach, but without giving any real reasons. He is now wanting reasons why it is not a good idea, and I'm using this question to see if the community can come up with a compelling enough list of reasons for him to use another approach, such as one using a dbms, code-reuse, url-rewriting, MVC, and what not.

    Read the article

  • How can I improve this design?

    - by klausbyskov
    Let's assume that our system can perform actions, and that an action requires some parameters to do its work. I have defined the following base class for all actions (simplified for your reading pleasure): public abstract class BaseBusinessAction<TActionParameters> : where TActionParameters : IActionParameters { protected BaseBusinessAction(TActionParameters actionParameters) { if (actionParameters == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("actionParameters"); this.Parameters = actionParameters; if (!ParametersAreValid()) throw new ArgumentException("Valid parameters must be supplied", "actionParameters"); } protected TActionParameters Parameters { get; private set; } protected abstract bool ParametersAreValid(); public void CommonMethod() { ... } } Only a concrete implementation of BaseBusinessAction knows how to validate that the parameters passed to it are valid, and therefore the ParametersAreValid is an abstract function. However, I want the base class constructor to enforce that the parameters passed are always valid, so I've added a call to ParametersAreValid to the constructor and I throw an exception when the function returns false. So far so good, right? Well, no. Code analysis is telling me to "not call overridable methods in constructors" which actually makes a lot of sense because when the base class's constructor is called the child class's constructor has not yet been called, and therefore the ParametersAreValid method may not have access to some critical member variable that the child class's constructor would set. So the question is this: How do I improve this design? Do I add a Func<bool, TActionParameters> parameter to the base class constructor? If I did: public class MyAction<MyParameters> { public MyAction(MyParameters actionParameters, bool something) : base(actionParameters, ValidateIt) { this.something = something; } private bool something; public static bool ValidateIt() { return something; } } This would work because ValidateIt is static, but I don't know... Is there a better way? Comments are very welcome.

    Read the article

  • Google app engine and paging

    - by klausbyskov
    How would one go about writing a query that selects items 2000-2010 out of a collection of 10000 objects in the data store. I know that it can be done like this in GQL: select * from MyObject limit 10 offset 2000 According to the documentation, when using an offset the engine will still fetch all the rows, only not return them, thus making the query perform in a way that corresponds linearly with the value of offset. Is there any better way? Such as using a pseudo ROWNUM column like one could do in other types of data stores.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to circumvent CA1726:UsePreferredTerms?

    - by klausbyskov
    I have a problem with the code analysis rule CA1726:UsePreferredTerms. Our business domain has two crucial concepts named Case and Flag. According to CA, it's apparently a deadly sin to use these names, however I really don't care since, as I said, they are crucial concepts in our domain model. CA complains not only about the type declarations but about every method parameter-name aswell. So does anyone know if there is a workaround other than adding loads of suppressions or disabling the rule altogether? Could I add the names to a custom dictionary?

    Read the article

1