Hi, Allen!
Like the other fellow who replied to this, I'd use something like Remoting
or (even better) the brand-spanking new WSE 2.0 SoapService. Unfortunately,
WSE 2.0 has been in a RSN state for a couple of weeks so I don't know if we
could use it for our stuff. If it does get released soon,
Hello, Bar-
You can add a typedName attribute to the column to change the displayed
name, but it's really only meant to be used to provide a friendlier column
name in the typed dataset. The name can't contain spaces, so it may not
achieve what you want to do. If you still want to try it out, you
This sounds like a job for
System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.ReleaseComObject! I'd recommend you
use a try...finally pattern to ensure the COM objects always get released.
Hope this helps!
-Andy Hopper
http://www.dotnetified.com
- Original Message -
From: Pandha Permjeet, Slough
Hi, Marek-
Unfortunately, RealProxy is jst beyond your grasp - the docs state that
applying the Proxy attribute to MarshalByRefObject is unsupported and
SoapHttpClientProtocol inherits from MarshalByRefObject. I believe it's
possible to accomplish it with a hack but it would anger the Gods of
Quoth J. Merrill:
I'm not going to assert that I've fully thought this through, but couldn't
your shared
assembly define an appropriate object class that has a constructor that
accepts
XML? (It might also have a SetState method that resets the state
completely from
XML, so you don't have to
(Copied in part from my blog at http://www.dotnetified.com)
NOTE: Let me preface this by saying that I want to believe. I really do
want to learn the so-called right way to do things, but I do reserve the
right to point out the emperor has no clothes if I feel it hampers my
productivity...
It
Here's my approach - basically, I lay it all on the SQL query optimizer.
I've found it to be 5x faster than the fill a temp table along with an
IDENTITY column, then select from the temp table approach on reasonably
large ( 10,000 rows) tables. The temp table approach is faster when the
result set
I just got asked an interesting question for which I have not been able to
find an answer. Is it possible to write a SOAP extension that eliminates the
round-trip to the server without having to modify the wsdl.exe-generated
code? I know you can do this with custom Remoting channels and/or
Many thanks, Alex! Must've been a bug in the extension I was writing - I
just did a from-scratch test project and it's working exactly as you
described.
-Andy
- Original Message -
From: Alex DeJarnatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:06 PM
Subject:
I am attempting to write an importer for a SOAP extension so that my users
can just use WSDL.exe or VS.NET's 'Add Web Reference' feature and have the
necessary client-side SOAP extension attributes generated for them when
the tool generates the client-side proxy. I've implemented the
ImportMethod
See Microsoft KB Article 326080:
HOW TO: Implement a DataSet JOIN helper class in Visual C# .NET
-Andy Hopper
- Original Message -
From: D.J. Stachniak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Querying across tables in a
Well, if you are really committed to XML serialization, you can implement
IXmlSerializable. Big flashing, honking warning though - it is undocumented
and unsupported by Microsoft, so you could have the rug pulled out from
underneath you in dotnetfx 2.0 (possible, but since DataSets use it, I'd be
It's on its way. For any others who want to get at the source, I ask that
you please hang on - I'm finishing up a new article for CodeProject that
will have the source as well as a description of what the heck I'm doing.
-Andy
- Original Message -
From: Marcel Gnoth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
I wrote that article a while ago - I have since written a better
implementation that uses P/Invoke to talk to the SCM rather than going
behind its back and mucking around in the registry. Let me know if you would
like to browse the source.
-Andy Hopper
- Original Message -
From: Paulo
Gosh, that's being a bit harsh. He already admitted that it's not as secure
as a random salt. While it's true that using a derived salt is not as secure
as a random salt, it is definitely more secure than using no salt at all.
With this approach, it is required that A) the black hat know your salt
Have you considered using the Microsoft.mshtml assembly instead? It provides
all of the DOM functionality of the WebBrowser control without any of the
threading issues (at least, none that I'm aware of...) Look in the Platform
SDK for the MSHTML reference.
-Andy Hopper
- Original Message
Yeah, I figured you had a fairly good reason to build your own, but I had to
ask.
My personal opinion is that projects like this ought be written in managed
C++ (it's much easier to play with pointers in C++) and use the MC++ library
as a gateway between the managed and unmanaged worlds. That
I'll ask the obligatory why can't you use the objects in the
System.DirectoryServices namespace? here. Now that we've gotten that out of
the way...
Passing structures that contain pointers to structures or arrays of
structures between managed and unmanaged code generally requires either a
custom
That is correct. The marshaler is going to trust you and the code you
are calling to have allocated (and when the call is completed, to
deallocate) whatever memory the call requires. All it knows is that you
are telling it to pass the address of an array of IntPtr to the
unmanaged code. It will
Thomas-
If the value of size changed something went terribly wrong, and I
wouldn't expect any code past the Next() call to work.
I'd first try removing the int return value - without the PreserveSig
attribute, the runtime will think the method has a fourth [out, retval]
parameter. I'd also
Hello, Thomas-
From what I understand, using the SizeParamIndex to marshal arrays only
works for marshaling data from managed code into COM and will not work
for out parameters. Due to this, I'm afraid you won't be able to use the
default marshaling provided by the framework. However, you should
That might work using the approach that Mattias suggested (using
SizeParamIndex and the first parameter instead of the third), but I
simply don't know if the marshaler would behave properly. It certainly
couldn't hurt to try. If it doesn't work, I'm fairly sure the approach I
recommended will.
Correct. Simply remove the PreserveSigAttribute, and the HRESULT will
automatically be checked. An exception will be thrown when a failure HRESULT
is returned. This is incredibly convenient, but there are occasionally
methods that return S_FALSE instead of S_OK to indicate a safe failure, in
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Tomiczek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Redeclaring COM interface return type - ??
snip
*** OK, so the trick is that was used to compile this has already the
retval
I believe I have developed a workable solution for supporting distributed
transactions over .NET remoting. The purpose behind this post was to make
sure I didn't inadvertently duplicate someone else's work or take a
wicked-bad wrong approach.
Note: To anyone who is going to remind us that
25 matches
Mail list logo
