|
Assuming you use Visual Studio you can right click your DLL-project and choose Properties. Under the "Debug" section you can choose an external program to be launched as a start action - a program that uses your DLL. Another simple way would be to just add for instance a Console project to your solution, add the DLL project to References and then start that program.
If you don't use Visual Studio, and your IDE doesn't support the first method described above, you could still use the second method for debugging. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we can do that,
But my requirment is that i already had a framework and this is the dll which i want to load, So i want to debug the dll without having .cs file .
What i has is just an pdb and .dll file.
I am able to launch the VS Debugger then how to give thw code to debug, thats the problem ?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it, do you want to debug a dll without an executable?
//daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Hi !
I'm looking to write a Windows Shell Namespace Extension using .Net.
The Extension needs to support drag'drop and context menus would also be nice.
What I'm specifically looking for is links, books, and examples that are useful.
Thank in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am writing an in-house application at work which stores data in SQL Server 2008 Express. In the application's database I have a table which contains user accounts and each user is assigned to a role. A few of the role titles: Administrator, Supervisor, Lead and so on. Depending on the user's role, I need to enable/disable certain elements, hide/show certain elements, etc. What is the best method to use in this situation?
I have seen a few from Google results, such as adding the role-based controls to a list and toggling them as necessary. But is that the most efficient method? What do you think?
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Do I really need to say, "It depends"? How many forms are you talking about, how many controls on each form, how many different roles, how often do you add new roles, how often do the requirements for existing roles change, do the end user administrators need to be in control of this themselves or is it OK for it to go back to the developers each time a change is required, does it matter if hidden fields leave ugly gaps on the form, or is the aesthetics of the thing important, can a user be in more than one role at the same time, and there are probably lots more considerations which will affect your decision.
|
|
|
|
|
The only form which will be affected is the main application form. It will not contain a ton of controls but it will contain some buttons, some menu items and some toolstrip items. There will be 4 or 5 roles which never change, there will be no need to add new roles and the requirements for each role will never change. Each user will only be part of one role at a time.
Hidden controls, unlike what I initially stated, will probably not be necessary aside from menu/toolstrip items. The only items I need to hide will be menu and toolstrip items, in which case the layout will change accordingly to place items in their new position.
I implemented this in a previous project. But there was a lot of "if role is Administrator then enable/show these controls; if role is Supervisor then enable/show only these controls; etc; etc". That became tedious after a while. So I am looking for a better solution.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Create another class called Permissions or something similar. In that class you would have boolean properties which correspond to each permission you would like. Then in your role class you would have a property permissions, which would return a permissions class with appropriate permissions set. Then each user would be assigned a role, which would have the permissions set. Then in you application you couls have a currentuser property, who would have their role with permissions, and so you could just enable buttons/menuitems according to the permissions. Here is a simple example:-
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
User currentUser;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
btnAddNewDoc.Enabled = currentUser.CurrentUserRole.Permissions.CanAddNewDoc;
}
}
class User
{
public int UserID { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public UserRole CurrentUserRole { get; set; }
}
class UserRole
{
public string RoleName { get; set; }
public RolePermissions Permissions { get; set; }
}
class RolePermissions
{
public bool CanAddNewDoc { get; set; }
public bool CanDeleteDoc { get; set; }
}
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Oh wow, thanks a lot. I will keep this in mind. The concept is quite simple really and I can easily create my own classes based on this idea. Thanks a lot, Wayne.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to help.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Good answer.
As an extension to this, you can then data bind the Enabled property to User.CurrentUserRole.CanXxx (at least in WPF/Silverlight, I think that works in WinForms too).
(By the way I'd just call that property User.Role. I like brevity  .)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. In WPF an easier way is to use this in your RelayCommand, something like this:-
public RelayCommand DeleteFileCommand
{
get
{
return new RelayCommand(() => DeleteFile(), () => CanDeleteFile());
}
}
void DeleteFile()
{
}
bool CanDeleteFile()
{
return currentUser.Role.Permissions.CanDeleteFile;
}
and then your button is automagically disabled 
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Matt U. wrote: The only items I need to hide will be menu and toolstrip items, in which case the layout will change accordingly to place items in their new position.
Addressing this part of your design only: have you considered having a container control place-holder on your client UI, and having three separate UserControls, one for each Role, which then are inserted into the place-holder based on Role ? Save you layout calculations: makes it easy to modify/maintain Role UI's ?
A good question, and Wayne's answers are great !
"Use the word 'cybernetics,' Norbert, because nobody knows what it means. This will always put you at an advantage in arguments." Claude Shannon (Information Theory scientist): letter to Norbert Weiner of M.I.T., circa 1940
|
|
|
|
|
I was answering a question here on CP with a recursive solution[^], and I realized I had never really thought about the internal memory use of variables ... which contain constant values at run-time ... in the parameter list of the recursive call in C#.
Now I do remember (dimly) from computer-science daze of yore that recursion uses stacks, and so forth. But, on a practical level in today's .NET C#, is there any real benefit from declaring constant value variables outside the recursive call vs. having them in the parameter list ? Example:
private void SetControlsEnabledProperty(bool isEnabled, bool isRecursive, string typeToCheck, Control.ControlCollection theControls)
{
foreach (Control theControl in theControls)
{
if (theControl.GetType().Name == typeToCheck)
{
theControl.Enabled = isEnabled;
}
else
{
if (isRecursive && theControl.HasChildren)
{
SetControlsEnabledProperty(isEnabled, isRecursive, typeToCheck, theControl.Controls);
}
}
}
}
}
In this code there are three variables whose constant-values are set by the calling code: can I assume the compiler recognizes this and does some kind of optimization; or is it possible that there may be some real benefit to defining those constant-value variables outside the recursive call ? As in
private void EnableAllTextBoxes()
{
bool isEnabled = true;
bool isRecursive = true;
string typeToCheck = "TextBox"
SetControlsEnabledProperty(Control.ControlCollection theControls);
}thanks, Bill
"Use the word 'cybernetics,' Norbert, because nobody knows what it means. This will always put you at an advantage in arguments." Claude Shannon (Information Theory scientist): letter to Norbert Weiner of M.I.T., circa 1940
modified 11-Oct-11 2:04am.
|
|
|
|
|
More method parameters means more bytes and more cycles, there isn't much the compiler can do about that. It has to obey the signature and semantics of the method, there could be other callers using non-const values.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I'm going to ask a friend of mine who is fluent in IL ... I'm not ... to look under-the-hood for me, and tell me if there is any optimization ... but I doubt there is. But, I have underestimated the C# compiler before: I did not realize until I asked I learned here on this forum that the switch/case statement, given an integer case-selector in a continuous range, generates a totally efficient IL jump table
thanks, Bill
"Use the word 'cybernetics,' Norbert, because nobody knows what it means. This will always put you at an advantage in arguments." Claude Shannon (Information Theory scientist): letter to Norbert Weiner of M.I.T., circa 1940
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I've given it any thought either -- until now.
I suppose the parameters would get copied each time, unless the compiler is smart enough.
BillWoodruff wrote: if (theControl.GetType().Name == typeToCheck)
TypeTransmogrifier[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, My guess is that it would be very difficult for a compiler to analyze code for any possible change of a variable's value in a recursive call ... a huge possibility matrix comes to mind ... but then I'm not a compiler-writer  I'm not fluent enough in IL to look under-the-hood and see what's going on.
I have studied ... in the sense of reading other people's explanations ... how the C# compiler optimizes switch/case statements, and the range of implementations/optimizations is quite fascinating.
I read your TypeTransmogrifier article with interest; I am curious if now, a few years later, you'd use the same techniques and code.
best, Bill
"Use the word 'cybernetics,' Norbert, because nobody knows what it means. This will always put you at an advantage in arguments." Claude Shannon (Information Theory scientist): letter to Norbert Weiner of M.I.T., circa 1940
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: use the same techniques and code.
Oh yes, but I don't need it very often.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure that it does cost those parameters on the stack each time. That's going to be 4b or so per parameter, I guess, if they're reference types, so it is a fairly minor cost, and compared to the time and resources of doing a recursive call in the first place, it's not really worth worrying about.
I'm not sure if the C# compiler optimises tail recursion (i.e. calling yourself on the last functional line of a code path), which can essentially be turned into a 'goto 1;' with some parameter reassignments and avoid the cost of a new function frame entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
For the type checking, directly comparing types (instead of the name) is actually better optimized in many case (though not all). Do you have access to the actual type to check against?
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: Do you have access to the actual type to check against?
Yes ! Thanks for reminding me, Harold; the last update of that code I did ... maybe a year ago ... used direct comparison. I'll update both my answer, and the post here on this forum.
My original goal was a method that was even more generalized, taking as its arguments the name (string) of the Property to be changed, and the new value for the Property, but I came to the conclusion this could not be done without Reflection, so I stopped there.
"Use the word 'cybernetics,' Norbert, because nobody knows what it means. This will always put you at an advantage in arguments." Claude Shannon (Information Theory scientist): letter to Norbert Weiner of M.I.T., circa 1940
|
|
|
|
|
Hello there.
I am currently writing a server and client application. I have code that can handle it when client users close their connection, however detecting when the connection has closed due to an error is a completely different story. What is the best way to do this?
I had a look at the forum and found similar questions. One of these propose that I use the Linger and Time Out properties of TCPClient to determine whether the connection is still open. What I read from MSDN about these properties are that they determine the time that write/read operations may wait to complete. To me this does not seem like a good way to test the connection, because shortening these times might close connections when in actual fact the remote connection hasn't disconnected but is merely very busy. Am I wrong? Is my understanding of lingering and time outs correct?
Another solution proposes that I use polling to determine whether the connections are open. This is actually what I am currently doing. My server has a thread that every once in a while sends a small piece of test data to every connection. I then try and catch the IOException exceptions that are thrown when I send data to a connection that closed at the client side. This seems to work for the most part, however, it does not throw immediately when I send the test data, it seems to throw randomly on the 2nd or 3rd set of test data. Only after it has thrown does the server's TCPCLient.Connected property change to false. How can I get the connection to immediately throw the exception? Could there be a better way to fix this and to see if the connection has closed?
Any Help is appreciated
Thanks!
KOM UIT DAAAAA!!!
|
|
|
|
|
To understand why this is a problem, look at how a TCP connection works. It is kept alive by, essentially, ping and acknowledgement packets, and a connection is 'dropped' if no acknowledgement packets are received. (It can also be actively closed, which is different, and which closes the Socket object and gives you a 0 byte read on the input stream.) That means that if a connection is lost, the time taken for the OS to notice is dependent on how long it's prepared to wait and how often it pings the connection.
I think, if you aren't sending any data, the connection is never checked. That's why sending data into the connection provokes the exception – it makes the OS look at the connection and say 'oh, nothing has been received for a minute, it must be closed'. Sometimes it won't fail because the overall timeout hasn't expired and it hasn't done a 'ping test' so your first data packet is what triggers the 'waiting for acknowledgement' and then the connection is marked as dropped after the ack timeout (a few seconds, I think).
These issues all come about because TCP is essentially emulating a connected, stream transfer subsystem on top of a packet-based, fire and forget one (IP), and working out when a receiver has gone away in that situation is not always immediately possible.
In my sockets library I catch the exceptions (SocketException, and also ObjectDisposedException which can happen if .Net closes and disposes of the socket without telling you about it) and treat that as a disconnection.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
