Search Results

Search found 31696 results on 1268 pages for 'client side validation'.

Page 10/1268 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Desktop GUI Client - Remote RDBMS communication

    - by magom001
    Sorry if I am asking a trivial question but I have been searching for a while without any luck. I need to design a system and I am looking for advice on the technology that should be used. The layout is very simple: it is a sales application with a centralized database and multiple clients. Each salesperson has GUI app installed on his/her laptop that should be able to connect to the database to retrieve data and upload data (i.e. register new orders). My question is the following: how should the communication between the client and the server be implemented? I doubt that connecting directly to the RDBMS is a good idea... Should I use web-services? XML-RPC? How to implement authentication and encode the data? Thanks for your advice!

    Read the article

  • Is Form validation and Business validation too much?

    - by Robert Cabri
    I've got this question about form validation and business validation. I see a lot of frameworks that use some sort of form validation library. You submit some values and the library validates the values from the form. If not ok it will show some errors on you screen. If all goes to plan the values will be set into domain objects. Here the values will be or, better said, should validated (again). Most likely the same validation in the validation library. I know 2 PHP frameworks having this kind of construction Zend/Kohana. When I look at programming and some principles like Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) and single responsibility principle (SRP) this isn't a good way. As you can see it validates twice. Why not create domain objects that do the actual validation. Example: Form with username and email form is submitted. Values of the username field and the email field will be populated in 2 different Domain objects: Username and Email class Username {} class Email {} These objects validate their data and if not valid throw an exception. Do you agree? What do you think about this aproach? Is there a better way to implement validations? I'm confused about a lot of frameworks/developers handling this stuff. Are they all wrong or am I missing a point? Edit: I know there should also be client side kind of validation. This is a different ballgame in my Opinion. If You have some comments on this and a way to deal with this kind of stuff, please provide.

    Read the article

  • Office 2007 and Office 2010 installed side by side

    - by BlueDevil
    I have Office 2007 and Office 2010 installed side-by-side. How do I stop the setup / configuration window from appearing each time I open a different version? If I open 2007, it will go through the configuration process, then I can use 2007 without issue until I open a 2010 application. Then, when I open any 2010 Office application it will go through the configuration process.

    Read the article

  • The balance between client and server functionality

    - by Eugen Martynov
    I want to bring the discussion that started in our teams and get your opinion about it. Assume we have an user account which could have different credentials for authentication and associated email to recover. An user has possibility to do signup with an email or use his social profile to complete signup process. As an Rest API from the backend to client looks like: Create account Authorise Update user data Link social account Register email Verify email In addition our BE is distributed and divided between several services/servers/clusters. So different calls are related to different end points. In case of the social sign up some of steps should be skipped or simplified. For example, with Facebook signup we could already skip email registration and verification step (we ask email permission form user), linking the social account and pre-fill user displayed name. So we proposed to have another end point which will hide/combine different calls on BE and return whole process result to the clients. The pros for this approach: No more duplication of functionality between clients Speed up the networking and user experience The cons for this approach: Additional work for backend Probably most complex scenarios in future updates I would like to get your opinion or experience with this situation. Especially if you already experienced point #2 from against reasons.

    Read the article

  • DRY Validation with MVC2

    - by Matthew
    Hi All, I'm trying to figure out how I can define validation rules for my domain objects in one single location within my application but have run in to a snag... Some background: My location has several parts: - Database - DAL - Business Logic Layer - SOAP API Layer - MVC website The MVC website accesses the database via the SOAP API, just as third parties would. We are using server and and client side validation on the MVC website as well as in the SOAP API Layer. To avoid having to manually write client side validation we are implementing strongly typed views in conjunction with the Html.TextBoxFor and Html.ValidationMessageFor HTML helpers, as shown in Step 3 here. We also create custom models for each form where one form takes input for multiple domain objects. This is where the problem begins, the HTML helpers read from the model for the data annotation validation attributes. In most cases our forms deal with multiple domain objects and you can't specify more than one type in the <%@Page ... Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage" % page directive. So we are forced to create a custom model class, which would mean duplicating validation attributes from the domain objects on to the model class. I've spent quite some time looking for workarounds to this, such has referencing the same MetadataType from both the domain class and the custom MVC models, but that won't work for several reasons: You can only specify one MetadataType attribute per class, so its a problem if a model references multiple domain objects, each with their own metadata type. The data annotation validation code throws an exception if the model class doesn't contain a property that is specified in the referenced MetadataType which is a problem with the model only deals with a subset of the properties for a given domain object. I've looked at other solutions as well but to no avail. If anyone has any ideas on how to achieve a single source for validation logic that would work across MVC client and server side validation functionality and other locations (such as my SOAP API) I would love to hear it! Thanks in advance, Matthew

    Read the article

  • Define "Validation in the Model"

    - by sunwukung
    There have been a couple of discussions regarding the location of user input validation: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/659950/should-validation-be-done-in-form-objects-or-the-model http://stackoverflow.com/questions/134388/where-do-you-do-your-validation-model-controller-or-view These discussions were quite old, so I wanted to ask the question again to see if anyone had any fresh input. If not, I apologise in advance. If you come from the Validation in the Model camp - does Model mean OOP representation of data (i.e. Active Record/Data Mapper) as "Entity" (to borrow the DDD terminology) - in which case you would, I assume, want all Model classes to inherit common validation constraints. Or can these rules simply be part of a Service in the Model - i.e. a Validation service? For example, could you consider Zend_Form and it's validation classes part of the Model? The concept of a Domain Model does not appear to be limited to Entities, and so validation may not necessarily need to be confined to this Entities. It seems that you would require a lot of potentially superfluous handing of values and responses back and forth between forms and "Entities" - and in some instances you may not persist the data recieved from user input, or recieve it from user input at all.

    Read the article

  • J2SE Client Server App: Client calls RMI method. Server handles RMI method and returns, but Client

    - by Mike
    J2SE Client Server App: Client calls RMI message. Server handles RMI method and returns, but Client never receives it. Any ideas how this could happen? Our attempted solution is to set client read timeouts and come up with a framework for resending requests or otherwise handling those failures gracefully. But really, I'd like to know any root causes for how this might happen rather than addressing the symptoms.

    Read the article

  • Rendering javascript at the server side level. A good or bad idea?

    - by davidhong
    I want to make it clear first: This isn't a question in relation to server-side Javascript or running Javascript server side. This is a question regarding rendering of Javascript code (which will be executed on the client-side) from server-side code. Having said that, take a look at below ASP.net code for example: hlRemoveCategory.Attributes.Add("onclick", "return confirm('Are you sure you want to delete this?');") This is prescribing the client-side onclick event on the server-side. As oppose to: $('a[rel=remove]').bind('click', function(event) { return confirm('Are you sure you want to delete this?'); } Now the question I want to ask is: What is the benefit of rendering javascript from the server-side code? Or the vice-versa? I personally prefer the second way of hooking up client-side UI/behaviour to HTML elements for the following reasons: Server-side does what ever it needs to already, including data-validation, event delegation and etc; and What server-side sees as an event is not necessarily the same process on the client-side. i.e., there are plenty more events on client-side (just look at custom events); and What happens on client-side and on server-side, during an event, could be completely irrelevant and decoupled; and What ever happens on client-side happens on client-side, there is no need for the server to know. Server should process and run what is given to them, how the process comes to life is not really up to them to decide in the event of the client-side events; and so and so forth. These are my thoughts obviously. I want to know what others think and if there has been any discussions on this topic. Topics branching from this argument can reach: Code management: is it easier to render everything from server-side? Separation of concern: is it easier if client-side logic is separated to server-side logic? Efficiency: which is more efficient both in terms of coding and running? At the end of the day, I am trying to move my team to go towards the second approach. There are lot of old guys in this team who are afraid of this change. I just wish to convince them with the right facts and stats. Let me know your thoughts.

    Read the article

  • Should your client be able to view your project management board?

    - by bizso09
    We're making a bespoke software for our client and use Codebase for our project management. Is it a good idea to let our client view our project management board? The advantages that we thought of are that this would enhance the cooperation between the client and the dev team, following agile practices. He would essentially become part of our team. It would also reduce communication overhead and make sure we're on the same page. The client could track the progression of the system and make suggestions along the way on the user stories. In addition, he could submit bugs or feature requests. The disadvantages that we though of are that some aspects of the board might be too technical to the client. He would suggest changes to the user stories too often and he might view some content that we normally wouldn't want our client to see. For example, when we compromise on technology or functionality, the client might question that and insist on doing things one way or the other.

    Read the article

  • Client A can ping server S, but client B cannot

    - by Soundar Rajan
    I moved the question to here from stackoverflow.com http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2917569/unable-to-ping-server-from-client-b-but-able-to-ping-from-client-a-please-help I am trying to configure a IIS 6.0/Windows Server 2003 web server with a ASP.net application. When I try to ping the server from client computer A I get the following: PING 74.208.192.xxx ==> Ping fails PING 74.208.192.xxx:80 ==> Ping succeeds! From client computer B, BOTH the pings fail. PING 74.208.192.xxx ==> Ping fails PING 74.208.192.xxx:80 ==> Ping fails with a message "Ping request could not find host 74.208.192.xxx:80" Both clients A and B are on the same subnet. The server is outside (a virtual server hosted by an ISP) I have an ASP.NET application in a virtual directory on the server. In IE or firefox, if I enter http://74.208.192.xxx/subdir/subdir/../Default.aspx, it works from both the clients! The server has default firewall settings but web server enabled (Port 80 is open). From client A (note the different 'reply to' address when the ping succeeds. C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC>ping 74.208.192.xx Pinging 74.208.192.xx with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. ... Request timed out. Ping statistics for 74.208.192.xx: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC>ping 74.208.192.xx:80 Pinging 74.208.192.xx:80 [208.67.216.xxx] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 208.67.216.xxx: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=54 ... Reply from 208.67.216.xxx: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=54 Ping statistics for 208.67.216.xxx: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 32ms, Maximum = 54ms, Average = 38ms From client B C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping 74.208.192.81 Pinging 74.208.192.81 with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. ... Request timed out. Ping statistics for 74.208.192.81: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), C:\Documents and Settings\user>ping 74.208.192.81:80 Ping request could not find host 74.208.192.81:80. Please check the name and try again. My main problem is I have a web service (asmx) file and the web service client program is not able to access it from client B, but able to access it from client A. I am trying to find out why and thought this ping issue may shed some light. I can ping yahoo.com both the computers.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2 validation using DTOs instead of domain entities

    - by Kevin Pang
    I'm struggling to mesh two best practices together: Using DataAnnotations + ModelBinding for validation in ASP.NET MVC 2 Using DTOs instead of domain entities when passing data via the ViewModel If I want to pass over DTOs instead of domain entities, then leveraging DataAnnotations + ModelBinding for validation would require me to specify validation attributes on my DTO classes. This results in a lot of duplicated work since multiple DTOs may hold overlapping fields with the same validation restrictions. This means that any time I change a validation rule in my domain, I have to go find all DTOs that correspond with that value and update their validation attributes.

    Read the article

  • WPF Validation with ContentPresenter

    - by Chris
    Hi, I have a WPF user control which needs to validate some fields. It is bound to a class implementing IDataErrorInfo. When I set the user control as the content of my ContentPresenter in another, already open, window, I can see validation occurring, and error messages being returned, however, I don't get any validation adorner - e.g. the default red outline. If I enter the field and leave it (triggering re-validation) the validation adorner appears. Also, if I show the user control in it's own window it shows the validation adorner immediately. (I'm using Caliburn IResults to do this underneath, e.g. Show.Dialog<VM>(); but I suspect this isn't related) Can anyone offer any suggestion why the validation adorners aren't appearing immediately. (I had guessed animation on my ContentPresenter ContentChanged, however, I have removed this and still experience the problem. thanks, Chris

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2: Custom client side validation rule for dropdowns

    - by Nigel
    I have some custom validation that I need to perform that involves checking the selected option of a dropdown and flagging it as invalid should the user select a specific option. I am using ASP.NET MVC 2 and have a custom Validator and custom server side and client side validation rules as described in this blog article. The server side validation is working fine, however, the client side validation is failing. Here is the javascript validation rule: Sys.Mvc.ValidatorRegistry.validators["badValue"] = function(rule) { var badValue = rule.ValidationParameters["badValue"]; return function(value, context) { if (value != badValue) { return true; } return rule.ErrorMessage; }; }; The rule is being applied to the dropdowns successfully, and placing a breakpoint within the returned function confirms that the validation is firing, and that the 'badValue' is being correctly set. However, 'value' is always null, and so the check always fails. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • asp.net form validation. Server-side or client-side

    - by Jeroen
    Here's (i think) an interesting question. With AJAX more and more common i feel more and more like doing all form validation server-side. Picture a registration form pre-AJAX. You have all your validation client-side using the common asp validation controls and validation summery...except...checking username availability, check emailadress availability, captcha and what not. So you end up with 2 kinds of validation and so presenting the user with 2 different UI's at 2 different moments. 2 words come to my mind. Ugly. Inconsistent. So here's the question. Why not do all the validation server-side (using AJAX or not). (I'm not using JQuery yet, should i?)

    Read the article

  • Facebook access token: server-side vs client-side flows

    - by alexey
    Facebook docs: Facebook Platform supports two different OAuth 2.0 flows for user login: server-side (known as the authentication code flow in the specification) and client-side (known as the implicit flow). The server-side flow is used whenever you need to call the Graph API from your web server. The client-side flow is used when you need to make calls to the Graph API from a client, such as JavaScript running in a Web browser or from a native mobile or desktop app. What is the difference between access tokens taken by these flows? It seems like they length differ. Can we use server-side flow token on a client? And otherwise, can we use client-side flow token on a server?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to validates_presence_of only one time? (to skip that validation once the user's been

    - by GoodGets
    So, I'd like for a user to see an error message if he submits a comment and the :name is blank (typical error message, don't need help with that). However, I'd then like to allow the user to skip that validation once he's been notified that "we like all comments to have a name." So, he submits the comment once, sees the notification, then can submit the form again unchanged if he really doesn't want to add a name, and the validates_presences_of :name is skipped. But, I'm not sure how to go about doing this. I thought about checking to see where the request is coming from, but after a create, errors are handed off to the "new" action, which is the same as actual "new" comments. I then thought about checking to see if flash[errors] were present, but that won't work because there are other validations a comment has to pass. Finally, I thought about trying a validates_presences_of :name, :unless = :notified but wasn't sure how to define notified. I honestly hate asking such an open ended question, but wasn't sure where to get started. So, is there a way to just check a certain validation once?

    Read the article

  • Data validation best practices: how can I better construct user feedback?

    - by Cory Larson
    Data validation, whether it be domain object, form, or any other type of input validation, could theoretically be part of any development effort, no matter its size or complexity. I sometimes find myself writing informational or error messages that might seem harsh or demanding to unsuspecting users, and frankly I feel like there must be a better way to describe the validation problem to the user. I know that this topic is subjective and argumentative. I've migrated this question from StackOverflow where I originally asked it with little response. Basically, I'm looking for good resources on data validation and user feedback that results from it at a theoretical level. Topics and questions I'm interested in are: Content Should I be describing what the user did correctly or incorrectly, or simply what was expected? How much detail can the user read before they get annoyed? (e.g. Is "Username cannot exceed 20 characters." enough, or should it be described more fully, such as "The username cannot be empty, and must be at least 6 characters but cannot exceed 30 characters."?) Grammar How do I decide between phrases like "must not," "may not," or "cannot"? Delivery This can depend on the project, but how should the information be delivered to the user? Should it be obtrusive (e.g. JavaScript alerts) or friendly? Should they be displayed prominently? Immediately (i.e. without confirmation steps, etc.)? Logging Do you bother logging validation errors? Internationalization Some cultures prefer or better understand directness over subtlety and vice-versa (e.g. "Don't do that!" vs. "Please check what you've done."). How do I cater to the majority of users? I may edit this list as I think more about the topic, but I'm genuinely interested in proper user feedback techniques. I'm looking for things like research results, poll results, etc. I've developed and refined my own techniques over the years that users seem to be okay with, but I work in an environment where the users prefer to adapt to what you give them over speaking up about things they don't like. I'm interested in hearing your experiences in addition to any resources to which you may be able to point me.

    Read the article

  • Data validation best practices: how can I better construct user feedback?

    - by Cory Larson
    Data validation, whether it be domain object, form, or any other type of input validation, could theoretically be part of any development effort, no matter its size or complexity. I sometimes find myself writing informational or error messages that might seem harsh or demanding to unsuspecting users, and frankly I feel like there must be a better way to describe the validation problem to the user. I know that this topic is subjective and argumentative. StackOverflow might not be the proper channel for diving into this subject, but like I've mentioned, we all run into this at some point or another. There are so many StackExchange sites now; if there is a better one, feel free to share! Basically, I'm looking for good resources on data validation and user feedback that results from it at a theoretical level. Topics and questions I'm interested in are: Content Should I be describing what the user did correctly or incorrectly, or simply what was expected? How much detail can the user read before they get annoyed? (e.g. Is "Username cannot exceed 20 characters." enough, or should it be described more fully, such as "The username cannot be empty, and must be at least 6 characters but cannot exceed 30 characters."?) Grammar How do I decide between phrases like "must not," "may not," or "cannot"? Delivery This can depend on the project, but how should the information be delivered to the user? Should it be obtrusive (e.g. JavaScript alerts) or friendly? Should they be displayed prominently? Immediately (i.e. without confirmation steps, etc.)? Logging Do you bother logging validation errors? Internationalization Some cultures prefer or better understand directness over subtlety and vice-versa (e.g. "Don't do that!" vs. "Please check what you've done."). How do I cater to the majority of users? I may edit this list as I think more about the topic, but I'm genuinely interest in proper user feedback techniques. I'm looking for things like research results, poll results, etc. I've developed and refined my own techniques over the years that users seem to be okay with, but I work in an environment where the users prefer to adapt to what you give them over speaking up about things they don't like. I'm interested in hearing your experiences in addition to any resources to which you may be able to point me.

    Read the article

  • Active FTP client blocked on Windows XP

    - by Ian Hannah
    Summary We have a FTP server (running in active mode). We have an FTP client which is connecting to the server, carrying out a task and then closing the connection. The FTP Client can perform this operation on multiple threads. Problem We have a situation where customers are experiencing occasional failures to carry out operations on a FTP connection. The actual connection has been made to the server but when the server attempts to return data on the data port if fails. Observations We have a simple test FTP client which is running two separate threads. Each thread is performing a recursive listing of files from a root directory. With the firewall running on the client machine the hang happens within a few minutes. If the firewall is turned off on the client machine, the test application seems to run correctly. This does point to a potential firewall issue. However, with the firewall on we can list files on our company FTP server without any issues. If the simple test FTP client runs a single thread then we do not experience any problems whether or not the firewall is turned on. We have another simple test FTP client which was running 4 threads (with each opening a new FTP connection, doing a directory listing and closing the FTP connection as fast as possible) overnight with the firewall turned off. With the firewall turned on it fails in a short space of time. The confusing thing is that if the test FTP client and the FTP server are run on the same machine the failure occurs even though the firewall is turned off. This means that the problem may not be firewall related. Any help with what this could be would be much appreciated. Thanks Ian

    Read the article

  • Reporting Services 2008 & 2012 side by side

    - by Iulian Ilies
    I have installed Sql Server 2008 & 2012 side by side on the same machine, and that's includes the reporting service for each. Both are instances are named instances: MSSQLSERVER2008 and MSSQLSERVER2012. I didn't configure the 2008 one but configured 2012 first and this one is working fine. However later on when I wanted to configure the 2008 reporting service instance I was not able to do so; it simply cannot find it. Both services are displayed as running, nevertheless while being in Reporting Services Configuration Manager only the 2012 instance is displayed. I tried stopping the 2012 but still no luck, 2008 won't show up in the RS configuration manager. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance Iulian

    Read the article

  • Domain Validation in a CQRS architecture

    - by Jupaol
    Basically I want to know if there is a better way to validate my domain entities. This is how I am planning to do it but I would like your opinion The first approach I considered was: class Customer : EntityBase<Customer> { public void ChangeEmail(string email) { if(string.IsNullOrWhitespace(email)) throw new DomainException(“...”); if(!email.IsEmail()) throw new DomainException(); if(email.Contains(“@mailinator.com”)) throw new DomainException(); } } I actually do not like this validation because even when I am encapsulating the validation logic in the correct entity, this is violating the Open/Close principle (Open for extension but Close for modification) and I have found that violating this principle, code maintenance becomes a real pain when the application grows up in complexity. Why? Because domain rules change more often than we would like to admit, and if the rules are hidden and embedded in an entity like this, they are hard to test, hard to read, hard to maintain but the real reason why I do not like this approach is: if the validation rules change, I have to come and edit my domain entity. This has been a really simple example but in RL the validation could be more complex So following the philosophy of Udi Dahan, making roles explicit, and the recommendation from Eric Evans in the blue book, the next try was to implement the specification pattern, something like this class EmailDomainIsAllowedSpecification : IDomainSpecification<Customer> { private INotAllowedEmailDomainsResolver invalidEmailDomainsResolver; public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Customer customer) { return !this.invalidEmailDomainsResolver.GetInvalidEmailDomains().Contains(customer.Email); } } But then I realize that in order to follow this approach I had to mutate my entities first in order to pass the value being valdiated, in this case the email, but mutating them would cause my domain events being fired which I wouldn’t like to happen until the new email is valid So after considering these approaches, I came out with this one, since I am going to implement a CQRS architecture: class EmailDomainIsAllowedValidator : IDomainInvariantValidator<Customer, ChangeEmailCommand> { public void IsValid(Customer entity, ChangeEmailCommand command) { if(!command.Email.HasValidDomain()) throw new DomainException(“...”); } } Well that’s the main idea, the entity is passed to the validator in case we need some value from the entity to perform the validation, the command contains the data coming from the user and since the validators are considered injectable objects they could have external dependencies injected if the validation requires it. Now the dilemma, I am happy with a design like this because my validation is encapsulated in individual objects which brings many advantages: easy unit test, easy to maintain, domain invariants are explicitly expressed using the Ubiquitous Language, easy to extend, validation logic is centralized and validators can be used together to enforce complex domain rules. And even when I know I am placing the validation of my entities outside of them (You could argue a code smell - Anemic Domain) but I think the trade-off is acceptable But there is one thing that I have not figured out how to implement it in a clean way. How should I use this components... Since they will be injected, they won’t fit naturally inside my domain entities, so basically I see two options: Pass the validators to each method of my entity Validate my objects externally (from the command handler) I am not happy with the option 1 so I would explain how I would do it with the option 2 class ChangeEmailCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<ChangeEmailCommand> { public void Execute(ChangeEmailCommand command) { private IEnumerable<IDomainInvariantValidator> validators; // here I would get the validators required for this command injected, and in here I would validate them, something like this using (var t = this.unitOfWork.BeginTransaction()) { var customer = this.unitOfWork.Get<Customer>(command.CustomerId); this.validators.ForEach(x =. x.IsValid(customer, command)); // here I know the command is valid // the call to ChangeEmail will fire domain events as needed customer.ChangeEmail(command.Email); t.Commit(); } } } Well this is it. Can you give me your thoughts about this or share your experiences with Domain entities validation EDIT I think it is not clear from my question, but the real problem is: Hiding the domain rules has serious implications in the future maintainability of the application, and also domain rules change often during the life-cycle of the app. Hence implementing them with this in mind would let us extend them easily. Now imagine in the future a rules engine is implemented, if the rules are encapsulated outside of the domain entities, this change would be easier to implement

    Read the article

  • Webmethod on my C# (server side) doesn't return data to client side (javascript)

    - by Philo
    I am using a c# Webmethod to return results to my client side written in Javascript. [WebMethod] public static string MyMethod(string Id) { SQL QUERIES and then .... // adding data to member class. Member member = new Member(Name, DOB, Sex, Member_Identification, Dates_of_services); return JsonConvert.SerializeObject(member); <-- member is a class of List strings } And on the client side you could invoke this method using the jQuery.ajax() function like this: $.ajax({ url: 'default.aspx/MyMethod', type: 'POST', contentType: 'application/json; charset=utf-8', data: JSON.stringify({ ID : ID }), success: on success { } }); function onSuccess(data) { // parses json returned data var jsondata = $.parseJSON(data.d); ..... } Now the data returned to the client side are Lists of Strings. This method works for me most times. However for one or two queries, the method runs forever without returning to the client side. On the server side however, I can use breakpoints and see that all the Lists of strings have been formed correctly. But I cannot seem to find out why they are never returned to the client side. My code reaches till the return statement on the server side and then the program just runs forever. It never reaches the function 'onsuccess' Can anyone tell me why this can happen? Anomalies in data maybe?

    Read the article

  • What are the arguments against the inclusion of server side scripting in JavaScript code blocks?

    - by James Wiseman
    I've been arguing for some time against embedding server-side tags in JavaScript code, but was put on the spot today by a developer who seemed unconvinced The code in question was a legacy ASP application, although this is largely unimportant as it could equally apply to ASP.NET or PHP (for example). The example in question revolved around the use of a constant that they had defined in ServerSide code. 'VB Const MY_CONST: MY_CONST = 1 If sMyVbVar = MY_CONST Then 'Do Something End If //JavaScript if (sMyJsVar === "<%= MY_CONST%>"){ //DoSomething } My standard arguments against this are: Script injection: The server-side tag could include code that can break the JavaScript code Unit testing. Harder to isolate units of code for testing Code Separation : We should keep web page technologies apart as much as possible. The reason for doing this was so that the developer did not have to define the constant in two places. They reasoned that as it was a value that they controlled, that it wasn't subject to script injection. This reduced my justification for (1) to "We're trying to keep the standards simple, and defining exception cases would confuse people" The unit testing and code separation arguments did not hold water either, as the page itself was a horrible amalgam of HTML, JavaScript, ASP.NET, CSS, XML....you name it, it was there. No code that was every going to be included in this page could possibly be unit tested. So I found myself feeling like a bit of a pedant insisting that the code was changed, given the circumstances. Are there any further arguments that might support my reasoning, or am I, in fact being a bit pedantic in this insistence?

    Read the article

  • How to provide warnings during validation in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Alex
    Sometimes user input is not strictly invalid but can be considered problematic. For example: A user enters a long sentence in a single-line Name field. He probably should have used the Description field instead. A user enters a Name that is very similar to that of an existing entity. Perhaps he's inputting the same entity but didn't realize it already exists, or some concurrent user has just entered it. Some of these can easily be checked client-side, some require server-side checks. What's the best way, perhaps something similar to DataAnnotations validation, to provide warnings to the user in such cases? The key here is that the user has to be able to override the warning and still submit the form (or re-submit the form, depending on the implementation). The most viable solution that comes to mind is to create some attribute, similar to a CustomValidationAttribute, that may make an AJAX call and would display some warning text but doesn't affect the ModelState. The intended usage is this: [WarningOnFieldLength(MaxLength = 150)] [WarningOnPossibleDuplicate()] public string Name { get; set; } In the view: @Html.EditorFor(model => model.Name) @Html.WarningMessageFor(model => model.Name) @Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Name) So, any ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >