Search Results

Search found 52968 results on 2119 pages for 'lucene net'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 662/2119 | < Previous Page | 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669  | Next Page >

  • Why isn't this infinite recursion? How does default variable initialization work in VB.NET?

    - by froadie
    I just made an interesting mistake in my code: Dim endColumn As Integer = startColumn + endColumn - 1 The code was actually supposed to be: Dim endColumn As Integer = startColumn + numColumns - 1 The interesting thing is, I would think that this code should be recursive and loop indefinitely, as the initialization of endColumn sort of calls itself. However, it seems that the code just treats the uninitialized variable as a 0 and so I get startColumn + 0 - 1. What is happening here behind the scenes? When does a variable get assigned a default value?

    Read the article

  • Shrink a cell (in an absolutely-positioned ASP.NET table) to fit its contents?

    - by Giffyguy
    My webpage currently looks like this: <asp:Table runat="server" style="position: absolute; left: 0%; top: 82%; right: 0%; bottom: 0%; width: 100%; height: 18%" CellPadding="0" CellSpacing="0" GridLines="Both"> <asp:TableRow> <asp:TableCell> Content1 </asp:TableCell> <asp:TableCell Width="2.5%"> </asp:TableCell> <asp:TableCell > Content2 </asp:TableCell> </asp:TableRow> </asp:Table> But I need it to look like this: "Content1" is of unknown size, and the table will have to adjust to fit it in, but without taking any unnecessary space away from "Content2." I can't use "display: table" because it isn't supported in IE7 and such, so I'm pretty much stuck using a regular table element unless there is something better out there that is supported in older browsers. Does anyone know how this can be accomplished?

    Read the article

  • How to run a javascript function before postback of asp.net button?

    - by Curtis White
    I'm using Javascript to create a DIV element and open up a new page by using onclientclick. This works great. Now, I need to write to it from the server side and this element must be created before it is posted back. How do I get the javascript to execute before the postback? Currently, I have to press the button twice because the element doesn't exist to write too on the first click. To be clear, I need this to execute before the "OnClick" of the button. Update: It looks like the Javascript function is called before the postback but the element is not updated until I run the second postback. Hmm Update: Unfortunately it is a bit more complicated then this. I'm creating a div tag in javascript to open a new window. Inside the div tag, I'm using a databinding syntax <%=Preview% so that I can get access to this element on the server side. From the server side, I'm injecting the code. I'm thinking this may be a chicken-egg problem but not sure. UPDATE! It is not the Javascript not running first. It is the databinding mechanism which is reading the blank variable before I'm able to set it. Hmm

    Read the article

  • Post data with jQuery to ASP.net, am I doing this secure enough?

    - by Wim Haanstra
    For a website I am building, I am using jQuery to post data to Generic Handlers I created for this purpose. Because you need to be logged in, to do most post actions (like 'rate a picture'), I am currently using the following technique: User visits page Page determines if user is logged in On Page_Load the page fills a hidden field with an encrypted string, which contains several needed variables, like User ID, Picture ID (of the picture they are currently viewing), the DateTime when the page was rendered. When the user clicks a "I like this picture"-button, I do a $.ajax post to my Generic Handler, with the encrypted string and the value whether or not they liked the picture. The Generic Handler decrypts the supplied encrypted string and takes a look at the DateTime to determine if it was not too long ago When everything works out, the vote is submitted to the database. In my understanding this is a pretty secure way to handle a situation like this. But maybe I am missing a very important point here. Any advice would be very welcome.

    Read the article

  • In .NET MVC, is there an easy way to check if I'm on the home page?

    - by Hairgami_Master
    I need to take a particular action if a user logs in from the home page. In my LogOnModel, I have a hidden field: @Html.Hidden("returnUrl", Request.Url.AbsoluteUri) In my Controller, I need to check if that value is the Home page or not. In the example below, I'm checking to see if the user is on a particular page ("Account/ResetPassword"). Is there a way to check to see if they're on the home page without resorting to regular expressions? [HttpPost] public ActionResult LogOnInt(LogOnModel model) { if (model.returnUrl.Contains("/Account/ResetPassword")) { return Json(new { redirectToUrl = @Url.Action("Index","Home")}); } Any ideas? A million thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can an ASP.NET page be a WebService also?

    - by halivingston
    I know it's a little odd, specifically because a Page inherits from the System.Web.Page (or something) and a WebService inherits from System.Web.Service (or something). But just thought I'd ask if there is any way to do this? Does anyone have suggestions to do this?

    Read the article

  • Redirect to current view on error in asp.net mvc?

    - by Pandiya Chendur
    I use TempData["message"] which internally uses session.... It works for me but when i do a return RedirectToAction("Create"); my other values are not restored because i am redirecting to Create view... Any suggestion how to retain the values of textboxes in the view..... if (!regrep.registerUser(reg)) { TempData["message"] = string.Format("{0} already exists", reg.EmailId); return RedirectToAction("Create"); } else { return RedirectToAction("Index"); }

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: How to create a basic Pseudo Viewstate? Or better solution?

    - by Mark Redman
    I am newish to MVC and understand all the great things about it, including the reasons why voewstate isnt available, however there are some circumstances where I think having some kind of view state will be quite handy, In my case I am thinking about list pages with various search filters that can be applied to the list. Would it be worthwhile implementing some kind of pseudo viewstate to hold this info in some cases? or is there a better solution? Any examples out there? Your comments appreciated.

    Read the article

  • is there something equivalent to 'Address of' or offset operator in .net?

    - by Gio
    We have nested stuctures as such, used as an interface for some device drivers. On occasion we have to update individual elements. An 'address of' operator would be helpful, but an 'offset' function or operator is what I'm really looking for, but not sure how to go about it. In other words, how far is structureN.elementX away from the start of the structure in bytes? [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct s1 { UInt16 elem1; UInt16 elem2; UInt16 elem3; } [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct s2 { UInt16 elem1; UInt16 elem2; UInt16 elem3; } [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct driver { public S1 s1; public S2 s2; } For instance we need to send the device driver some data to update driver.s1.elem3, by way of providing an offset address, data block and length. We would update our local copy, then call the device api with the afore mentioned data. Not sure I have to do this with 'unsafe' method calls. Any help?

    Read the article

  • RewitePath on IIS7 with .Net 3.5 or 4.0 - The resource cannot be found.

    - by Renso
    In Global.asax handle errors by trying to redirect users to another page without changing the url in the address bar, that's why I am using RewritePath and not Redirect. void Application_Error(object sender, EventArgs e) { // Code that runs when an unhandled error occurs Context.RewritePath("~/Error.aspx", false); } Error.apsx in same root folder as About.aspx, and Default.aspx pages which of course work. Not sure I am having this issue. Have the following web.config file settings that I thought may be relevant: IIS7 settings: Application "TestRewriteUrl" under Default Web Site on DefaultAppPool. This example my seem trivial but I cannot use IIS7 HTTP Redirect as I actually was using this example to keep it simple. What I want to ultimately do is have a user type in http://www.somesite.com/myownpage and have it rewrite the path to another page in the same application directory by looking up the "myownpage" in the database to see what database id they have and redirect them to the correct "microsite" based on that without the user noticing a url change. Kind of like when you go to a blogging engine and no matter where in your blog you go the url remains the same. I don't want the user to go from http://www.mysite.com/tomshardware to http://www.mysite.com?id=8734656856. So that is why I used the simply example above to try and understand why the rewrite path does not work.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC2 - Trim white space from form submits before server-side validation?

    - by David Lively
    If I add a validation attribute: public class ProductDownloadListModel { //xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx [Required] [StringLength(17)] public string PSN { get; set; } public DateTime PsnExpirationDate { get; set; } public DataTable Downloads { get; set; } } and the user enters a 17-character string but includes white space on the end, I get a validation error because the string is greater than that specified by the [StringLength(17)] attribute. How can I prevent this? I'd prefer not to have to have javaScript trim the string before submits.

    Read the article

  • .NET MVC What is the best way to disable browser caching?

    - by Chameera Dedduwage
    As far as my research goes, there are several steps in order to make sure that browser caching is disabled. These HTTP headers must be set: Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate Pragma: no-cache, no-store Expires: -1 Last-Modified: -1 I have found out that this can be done in two ways: Way One: use the web.config file <add name="Cache-Control" value="no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate"/> <add name="Pragma" value="no-cache, no-store" /> <add name="Expires" value="-1" /> <add name="Last-Modified" value="-1" /> Way Two: use the meta tags in _Layout.cshtml <meta http-equiv="Cache-Control" content="no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, proxy-revalidate" /> <meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache, no-store" /> <meta http-equiv="Expires" content="-1" /> <meta http-equiv="Expires" content="-1" /> My Question: which is the better approach? Or, alternatively, are they equally acceptable? How do these all relate to different platforms? Which browsers would honor what headers? In addition, please feel free to add anything I've missed, if any.

    Read the article

  • Is there a .NET class that represents operator types?

    - by user323774
    I would like to do the following: *OperatorType* o = *OperatorType*.GreaterThan; int i = 50; int increment = -1; int l = 0; for(i; i o l; i = i + increment) { //code } this concept can be kludged in javascript using an eval()... but this idea is to have a loop that can go forward or backward based on values set at runtime. is this possible? Thanks

    Read the article

  • asp.net datasource in memory which component suites this better?

    - by Mike
    I need to create a page that has a listbox with databound items. Upon clicking an entry in the listbox, the page will postback and insert an entry into a listview. The listview should have the item's name, and a textbox allowing the user to edit the value for each. I don't want the listview to be in "edit" mode. I just want the user to be able to update the value. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • How to reserve public API to internal usage in .NET?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. Let me first present the case, which will explain my question. This is going to be a bit long, so I apologize in advance :-). I have objects and collections, which should support the Merge API (it is my custom API, the signature of which is immaterial for this question). This API must be internal, meaning only my framework should be allowed to invoke it. However, derived types should be able to override the basic implementation. The natural way to implement this pattern as I see it, is this: The Merge API is declared as part of some internal interface, let us say IMergeable. Because the interface is internal, derived types would not be able to implement it directly. Rather they must inherit it from a common base type. So, a common base type is introduced, which would implement the IMergeable interface explicitly, where the interface methods delegate to respective protected virtual methods, providing the default implementation. This way the API is only callable by my framework, but derived types may override the default implementation. The following code snippet demonstrates the concept: internal interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } void IMergeable.Merge(object obj) { Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } All is fine, provided a single common base type suffices, which is usually true for non collection types. The thing is that collections must be mergeable as well. Collections do not play nicely with the presented concept, because developers do not develop collections from the scratch. There are predefined implementations - observable, filtered, compound, read-only, remove-only, ordered, god-knows-what, ... They may be developed from scratch in-house, but once finished, they serve wide range of products and should never be tailored to some specific product. Which means, that either: they do not implement the IMergeable interface at all, because it is internal to some product the scope of the IMergeable interface is raised to public and the API becomes open and callable by all. Let us refer to these collections as standard collections. Anyway, the first option screws my framework, because now each possible standard collection type has to be paired with the respective framework version, augmenting the standard with the IMergeable interface implementation - this is so bad, I am not even considering it. The second option breaks the framework as well, because the IMergeable interface should be internal for a reason (whatever it is) and now this interface has to open to all. So what to do? My solution is this. make IMergeable public API, but add an extra parameter to the Merge method, I call it a security token. The interface implementation may check that the token references some internal object, which is never exposed to the outside. If this is the case, then the method was called from within the framework, otherwise - some outside API consumer attempted to invoke it and so the implementation can blow up with a SecurityException. Here is the modified code snippet demonstrating this concept: internal static class InternalApi { internal static readonly object Token = new object(); } public interface IMergeable { void Merge(object obj, object token); } public class BaseFrameworkObject : IMergeable { protected virtual void Merge(object obj) { // The default implementation. } public void Merge(object obj, object token) { if (!object.ReferenceEquals(token, InternalApi.Token)) { throw new SecurityException("bla bla bla"); } Merge(obj); } } public class SomeThirdPartyObject : BaseFrameworkObject { protected override void Merge(object obj) { // A derived type implementation. } } Of course, this is less explicit than having an internally scoped interface and the check is moved from the compile time to run time, yet this is the best I could come up with. Now, I have a gut feeling that there is a better way to solve the problem I have presented. I do not know, may be using some standard Code Access Security features? I have only vague understanding of it, but can LinkDemand attribute be somehow related to it? Anyway, I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • how to pass an array from a asp.net mvc controller action back to javascript using jquery / ajax

    - by oo
    Here is my jQuery code: $.get('/Home/GetList', function(data) { debugger; $('#myMultiSelect').val(values); }); Here is my controller code: public ActionResult GetList(int id) { int[] bodyParts = _repository.GetList(id); //how do i return this as an array back to javascript ?? } if I have the GetList function return an array of integers, how do I return this to the jQuery function?

    Read the article

  • .NET Best Way to move many files to and from various directories??

    - by Dan
    I've created a program that moves files to and from various directories. An issue I've come across is when you're trying to move a file and some other program is still using it. And you get an error. Leaving it there isn't an option, so I can only think of having to keep trying to move it over and over again. This though slows the entire program down, so I create a new thread and let it deal with the problem file and move on to the next. The bigger problem is when you have too many of these problem files and the program now has so many threads trying to move these files, that it just crashes with some kernel.dll error. Here's a sample of the code I use to move the files: Public Sub MoveIt() Try File.Move(_FileName, _CopyToFileName) Catch ex As Exception Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000) MoveIt() End Try End Sub As you can see.. I try to move the file, and if it errors, I wait and move it again.. over and over again.. I've tried using FileInfo as well, but that crashes WAY sooner than just using the File object. So has anyone found a fool proof way of moving files without it ever erroring? Note: it takes a lot of files to make it crash. It'll be fine on the weekend, but by the end of the day on monday, it's done.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669  | Next Page >