|
Whichever way you decide to go, you will need a client process running on the remote server. You cannot directly modify Linux/Unix systems this way. You would be better looking into one of the remote shell applications such as Putty or SCP.
|
|
|
|
|
If the Linux machine has a webserver and is running webservices, then yes, you can "invoke" the webservice. The term query rather implies a database-server, for which you'd use a specialized data-provider, just as under Windows.
As for Open Source; if you have Mono installed with some webserver (like Apache) then you have all the components required to create and invoke webservices.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Eddy,
Tnx for your answer.
I think I didn't expline my self properly.
I want to make a cross platform connection class that will fit windows,Linux and FreeBSD hosts type and then execute remote command and return the command RC and stdout or stderr.
my current project run over ssh but I want to adjust it to windows host also.
do you think mono will be appropriate solution for me ? I must use webservice to work with mono ?
Thanks in advance, Eldad
|
|
|
|
|
elza63 wrote: my current project run over ssh but I want to adjust it to windows host also.
Windows supports SSH. It is based on TCP/IP, which is cross-platform; it is what makes the internet work.
elza63 wrote: do you think mono will be appropriate solution for me ? I must use webservice to
work with mono ?
You're not required to use webservices; again, depends on what you want to communicate with. I'm using Putty as a client, works nicely under Windows.
I was assuming you'd want to use C# to write your application; under Linux, that would imply using Mono. I'm not sure whether the SSHNET[^] library works under Mono, but you could give it a try.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Why should we use MVC framework? Will there be any problem if I don't use it and instead I use stored procedure?
|
|
|
|
|
MVC doesn't have anything to do with either Entity Framework or Stored Procedures. MVC is a design pattern (or, in case of ASP.Net MVC, a technology) for your presentation layer. Entity Framework and Stored Procedures belong to your data access layer. So, your question doesn't really make sense - instead I would say there will be a problem if you don't understand this. You should understand it before starting to design an application.
Edit:
If you meant to ask if you should use Entity Framework or Stored Procedures as data access solution for your MVC-project - that would make a bit more sense. But as these are still completely different parts of your application, you can choose whatever you want, or, as Pete O'Hanlon wrote, even Entity Framework with Stored Procedures (there's an article on that here on CodeProject if you want to look into that).
modified 7-Apr-15 7:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
I rather think that the OP was asking if you have to use EF in ASP MVC applications.
|
|
|
|
|
That would make a bit more sense 
|
|
|
|
|
You are free to use whatever approach you like to accessing your database. EF is just one approach you can adopt (you can even use stored procedures in EF if you want to).
|
|
|
|
|
You'll encounter two issues if you use Stored Procedures with MVC, but both are convenience items.
- If you want to scaffold controllers for RAD, you will not be able to do so using a SqlConnection; MVC uses Entity Framework for this.
- If you do not map your Stored Procedure to a model class, you will not be able to scaffold views. Again, this just affects RAD options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a url in an application, so how can I launch that url through windows form.?
Help me with your valuable suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Try:
Process.Start(@"http://codeproject.com");
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
using System.Diagnostics;
Process.Start("URl");
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone really use Factory Patterns? To me, it seems like it involves a lot of classes that create other classes. What's the point?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't neccessarily involve a lot of classes. E.g. I have a factory class for creating an instance of a database-access-wrapper-class (abstract base class with concrete implementations for SQL-Server, Postgres, ..). Depending on the supplied parameters it creates that database-access-wrapper-class-instance for the appropriate database. The point is that its not really the responsibility of the created class to know about all variants, it should just do its own specialized job.
|
|
|
|
|
It can be as simple as a function that returns a new instance of something. The point is that it's more flexible than a constructor. It can choose which type to return an instance of, and it can be overridden in ways that a constructor can not be. It's often abused, to the point that many people cringe upon seeing the word "factory", but it's useful sometimes. It's one of those patterns (well, aren't they all) that you've probably invented yourself before even learning it was a pattern and had a name.
|
|
|
|
|
I asked because many times when I see a factory (ThisFactory<t> or ThatFactory(int x)), it's usually just a class with one method with a switch statement that returns an instance.
I don't see the real fascination with factories, so I thought I'd ask.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
The abuse is probably more rampant in Java. Factory classes are only occasionally useful. Compared to factory methods they have only slightly more power (you can pass an instance of them as faux-delegate (this actually makes sense in Java), they can keep state (but that's ugly), they could have a subclass and have a factory to create factories (please no)).
Coder For Hire wrote: switch statement that returns an instance.
Well, that's really the point. The rest is just details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coder For Hire wrote: it involves a lot of classes that create other classes.
That actually is abstract factory.
In the Factory pattern, classes are responsible for creating their own instances.
Some Patterns are useful.
So long as your code is decoupled (Class B should not change behaviour because A changed) and cohesive (each class doing only one thing), you would be ok.
|
|
|
|
|
IDbConnection.CreateCommand is a factory. Call it from a SqlConnection, you get a SqlCommand.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I use it quite a bit in class libraries so that I can use a custom MEF DI framework. It allows my applications to self-assemble without requiring explicit support from the application that uses the library.
|
|
|
|
|
I would appreciate hearing more details about this technique.
thanks, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
