|
Thanks, that's what I thought. I was asked to make sure the newer framework wasn't claim jumping somehow.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop.
-- Matthew Faithfull
|
|
|
|
|
There is one subtle complication. If you're using VS 2008 and wish to use features that are in either .NET 2.0 SP1 or .NET 3.0 SP1 then you should select .NET 3.5 as a target. Don't ask! 
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Dave's answer is correct for EXEs. For DLLs, the answer is 'whatever version the executable loaded'. If the CLR is invoked via COM, where no version of the CLR was already loaded into the process, the latest version installed on the system will be loaded.
You can also use supportedRuntime elements in XML configuration for managed and unmanaged EXEs to override the default rules, unless (I assume) the program uses the CLR hosting APIs to load a specific version.
If you do redirect a program to use a different version of the CLR you will have to use a version of Visual Studio matching the new CLR version to debug, as VS .NET 2003 can only debug CLR 1.1 processes and VS 2005 only CLR 2.0.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting. How can I test? I have .NET 1.1 to 3.5.
The way I think to test is that ~
- Create the Window Form project in VS 2003. (I'm not sure whether I should add or not )
- Add the Class Library in VS 2003
- Add that class library as a reference in winform project
- Write the code that can be used in 1.1 and is obsoleted in 3.5 (I have to find that obsoleted code. )
- Call that function from Windows Form
- Run the application.
Will the exception be thrown if I run the winform? OR how can I test?
Thanks. Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a delegate in my remote object. And i want to assign a client side method to that delegate from client. so that the server can call the client side method. How should i do that. I dont want to pass any object frm client to server onorder get it registered there
|
|
|
|
|
I don't recommend doing this (events or callbacks) for various reasons. Performance being one issue, stability being another. This may have changed with the release of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), but I haven't had the time to try it out myself, let alone test it in a scalable situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at my article - Persistent Events (here in codeproject). I think it has an answer for your question as well
==========================================================
Alexander Arlievsky
Chief Software Architect & CTO, mPrest Ltd
alex@mprest.com
"The most valuable tools for debugging are brains"
==========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a TextBox style in which I want to have a TextBlock that gets the text from the TextBox. The reason is that I want the text to use ellipsis when it's not selected. Since you can't use that on a TextBox I thought up this little workaround.
I tried this (never mind the formatting):
<ScrollViewer SnapsToDevicePixels="{TemplateBinding SnapsToDevicePixels}" x:Name="PART_ContentHost"/><br><br />
<TextBlock Padding="3" Visibility="Visible" ToolTip="{Binding Path=Text, ElementName=PART_ContentHost}" Text="{Binding Path=Text, ElementName=PART_ContentHost}" TextTrimming="CharacterEllipsis" x:Name="Tbl" TextWrapping="NoWrap" HorizontalAlignment="Right" Width="172.8" VerticalAlignment="Bottom" Height="24.6" Margin="0,0,-90,0" d:LayoutOverrides="HorizontalAlignment, VerticalAlignment"/></br>
This works with the ToolTip but not the Text. Does anybody know why that is?
And as I mentioned I'm using this in a style so I can't use any C#.
I appreciate all help I get.
Thanks,
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
I just solved it myself.
Of some reason the tooltip works with the normal, easy binding but the text needs a little more. I solved it by using:
Text="{Binding Path=Text, RelativeSource={RelativeSource AncestorType={x:Type TextBox}}}"
//Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have an application that needs to behave differently depending on the user running the application. (I.e. I need to block the admin functions from general users)
The app uses a SQL server database. Is it safe to store the windows user's SSID along with their permissions/restrictions and then use WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent().User.Value and compare this with the values stored in the database when the app is run to do my restrictions?
(User's don't have permissions to write to the database, so there's no risk of a user changing their own settings)
I'm making the assumption here that it's not possible to change windows user SSIDs. Would it be safer to hash the SSID before storing it and compare that instead?
What about the risk of someone changing the in memory value of the current user's SSID after it is loaded, but before it is hashed and compared to the stored value?
What should I be doing instead of this to restrict what different users can do.
Many thanks,
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Stevens wrote: The app uses a SQL server database. Is it safe to store the windows user's SSID along with their permissions/restrictions and then use WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent().User.Value and compare this with the values stored in the database when the app is run to do my restrictions?
Why not just the user name? Why make things more difficult for yourself.
Simon Stevens wrote: Would it be safer to hash the SSID before storing it and compare that instead?
You would do this for a password. Not an identifier.
Simon Stevens wrote: What about the risk of someone changing the in memory value of the current user's SSID after it is loaded, but before it is hashed and compared to the stored value?
I don't know your users. Do you think they have that level of technical expertise? I know I don't (although I could find out, I suppose).
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Why not just the user name? Why make things more difficult for yourself.
No real reason, Id just came to mind first, also, can't user names be changed?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: You would do this for a password. Not an identifier.
My concern was that if it is possible to change your user's SSID, you could just change it to match others in the database. By hashing the stored value no one would be able to do this
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I don't know your users. Do you think they have that level of technical expertise? I know I don't (although I could find out, I suppose).
I doubt it, but if i'm going to use arguments like that I would just build the app with an unsecured database and make the assumption that none of my users would know how to access a SQL database anyway. Surely I should aim to be secure, regardless of the probable technical ability of the users.
I suppose my real question here is "is it possible to change a users SSID?" (either deliberatly to impersonate another user to gain permissions, or inadvertantly and lose the access the user should have).
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Stevens wrote: can't user names be changed?
Yes, I suppose they can. But then, if an administrator changes the user's username, surely they can be told to update the database also?
Simon Stevens wrote: My concern was that if it is possible to change your user's SSID, you could just change it to match others in the database
The SSID is static, I believe - but I don't know enough about it to say whether it stays the same across the network or each machine assigns its own, etc. And if you were using user names instead, although you could change the user name, you couldn't change it to clash with an existing one. If users are removed from the syste, regardless of whether you are using SSIDs or user names the information should be removed from the database.
Simon Stevens wrote: I doubt it, but if i'm going to use arguments like that I would just build the app with an unsecured database and make the assumption that none of my users would know how to access a SQL database anyway.
No, I'm trying to be pragmatic. If you attempt to over do security you will tie yourself in knots rather than actually secure the system.
Simon Stevens wrote: Surely I should aim to be secure, regardless of the probable technical ability of the users.
Yes, but if you are going to the depth of securing something as ephemeral as an ID in memory while the process is running? There is a SecureString class you might be interested in. But, if the data really is truely that sensitive that you need that level of protection then I would respectfully suggest that you get someone in who is an expert in that area of security because I know it is beyond me and given the fact you are aksing these questions, it is beyond you too.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: he SSID is static, I believe
Yep. Once created, it never changes, so long as Windows isn't reinstalled.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: but I don't know enough about it to say whether it stays the same across the network or each machine assigns its own,
If in a Workgroup environment, each machine maintains it's own SAM database, hence each login name (even if the same acrossed all machines) has a different SID. In a Domain environment, the domain maintains the sole copy of the SAM database and each machine in the domain trusts that copy, so the SID won't change between machines.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Yes, but if you are going to the depth of securing something as ephemeral as an ID in memory while the process is running? There is a SecureString class you might be interested in. But, if the data really is truely that sensitive that you need that level of protection then I would respectfully suggest that you get someone in who is an expert in that area of security because I know it is beyond me and given the fact you are aksing these questions, it is beyond you too.
Very much agreed. This sounds almost like a "federal government paranoid" requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for the help guys. I'm concluding that for my purposes, it is good enough to do it this way.
Thanks
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,,
I am making Windows Services with the help of the project Templete in VS 2005. As per my information this services require .Net Framework.So,I want to know that if I make this Service than it will require .Net Framework to run on other PCs on which it is running.
I want to know this as early as possible before I am going further in my work and after reaching very deep then I realised that I am doing wrong thing.
Thanks in Advance.
Ashish Bhatt,
System Developer,
Avinashi System Pvt. Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
You could make it run without the .NET framework installed. There are applications which bundle the framework in with your application, but the resulting exe does tend to be quite large, plus the cost of these applications does tend to be prohibitive. Here's[^] one example.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You very much for reply.
As you told, that means I can run my Service on other PC (without .NET framework) Right?? So , I do not have to worry about my service.Means I will have to make installation package for my service, right??
I want to know with my service exe what other .DLLs and other files I have to include??? Can you plz help up to this quetion because I am new at .Net Framework.
Thanks in Advance.
Ashish Bhatt,
System Developer,
Avinashi System Pvt. Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all...i have a small problem...i have created a setup for my application..now i want that if application is running and we again click on exe..it should not open another application....Can any one help me.....thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] article might help. It's from this[^] book.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: This[^] article might help. It's from this[^] book.
The drawback to that approach is that it requires creating an inherited application class for each application you want to single-instance, whereas the first method suggested above doesn't have that issue.
For most this probably isn't a problem; I had a large project with several executables though and found that to be an issue.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Sears wrote: The drawback to that approach is that it requires creating an inherited application class for each application you want to single-instance, whereas the first method suggested above doesn't have that issue.
You're right of course, but as the OP only stated this was for one application then I didn't see this as an issue. BTW - with the judicious use of generics, you can get around the inherited application class problem. There are ways to do this without having too much fuss, it just requires a little bit of extra work in the design phase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. You might want to look around on amazon's developer site for a forum there.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
