Search Results

Search found 53332 results on 2134 pages for 'vb net)'.

Page 204/2134 | < Previous Page | 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211  | Next Page >

  • Where and which data to save into session on an ASP.NET MVC 2 application?

    - by Shaharyar
    I am having some trouble saving the state of my current view. Currenly I have several selectlist calling their own Action method on the controller that returns the Index view with the filtered model based on the values of the selectlist. I have also written a little FileResult action that creates a csv file based on the current model. But I am only covering one selectlist right now as I only save the value of selectList1 into the session and access it with Session["SelectListValue1"] What are the best practices in this situation? Should I redo the entire (each action for each SelectList) part? Should I save each SelectLists value into the session and check if it's null? Or should I just save the Lambda Expression into the session and modify it during every call?

    Read the article

  • Possible to have multiple Profiles in ASP.NET for different users?

    - by asple
    My application has a few different user types with their own members. For example, I have the student user as well as the teacher user. I authenticate my users through active directory in my custom MembershipProvider's ValidateUser method. While querying AD, I pull out all their relevant information. I'd like to put that information into a Profile, but from what I've read and the examples I've sen, you can only define a single Profile (like so): <profile defaultProvider="CustomProfileProvider" enabled="true"> <properties> <add name="YearLevel" type="String" /> <add name="Name" type="String" /> <add name="Age" type="String" /> </properties> </profile> The above profile would work for a student, but not for a teacher, who does not have a value for "YearLevel" in AD. Is it possible to have multiple profiles to accomplish this? Or is it easier to add all properties from AD spanning all user types, then in my code, just check what user type they are and then access their specific properties?

    Read the article

  • Are there commercially deployed and used .NET CAS (Code Access Security) based applications?

    - by Dinis Cruz
    I've seen a couple threads here on SO that ask about what CAS is and how to use it.My specific is specifically focused on real-world usages of CAS. For example: DotNetNuke did some efforts in the past to be able to run under Medium Trust: is that still true? what is the % of DNN that run in partial trust (i.e. not full trust)? what & of DNN modules run in partial trust?) Sharepoint defaults to a Partially-Trusted environment on dlls executed from the bin folder: How many 'commercially' available WebParts can run in this bin folder (without changing the policy)? The key here is to be able to point to CAS success stories, so that other companies feel that they should also invest in writing CAS-enabled apps

    Read the article

  • Using SqlCacheDependency to get real time updates? - ASP.NET

    - by user102533
    I would like to display real time updates on a web page (based on a status field in a database table that is altered by an external process). Based on my research, there are several ways of doing this. Long Polling (Comet) - This seems to be complex to implement Regular Polling - I can have an AJAX method trigger a database hit every 5seconds to get the current status. But I fear this will have performance issues. Then I read about using SqlCacheDependency - basically the cache gets invalidated based on a field in the table. I am assuming I can use the event trigerred when the cache is invalidated to show the new update to the user? What's an easy solution that will not have performance issues? anyone?

    Read the article

  • ASP.net MVC - Determine how many bytes of a request have been read/received?

    - by vdhant
    Hey guys Just wondering if anyone has any idea how you can determine how many bytes of a request have been read/received by the server... In other words how do I stream http request... In that, users are uploading files and I want to report on a perotic basis how many bytes have been read/received so far. Just wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I might do this... Cheers Anthony

    Read the article

  • How to intercept 401 from Forms Authentication in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Jiho Han
    I would like to generate a 401 page if the user does not have the right permission. The user requests a url and is redirected to the login page (I have deny all anonymous in web.config). The user logs in successfully and is redirected to the original url. However, upon permission check, it is determined that the user does not have the required permission, so I would like to generate a 401. But Forms Authentication always handles 401 and redirects the user to the login page. To me, this isn't correct. The user has already authenticated, the user just does not have the proper authorization. In other scenarios, such as in ajax or REST service scenario, I definitely do not want the login page - I need the proper 401 page. So far, I've tried custom Authorize filter to return ViewResult with 401 but didn't work. I then tried a normal Action Filter, overriding OnActionExecuting, which did not work either. What I was able to do is handle an event in global.asax, PostRequestHandlerExecute, and check for the permission then write out directly to response: if (permissionDenied) { Context.Response.StatusCode = 401; Context.Response.Clear(); Context.Response.Write("Permission Denied"); Context.Response.Flush(); Context.Response.Close(); return; } That works but it's not really what I want. First of all, I'm not even sure if that is the right event or the place in the pipeline to do that. Second, I want the 401 page to have a little more content. Preferably, it should be an aspx page with possibly the same master page as the rest of the site. That way, anyone browsing the site can see that the permission is denied but with the same look and feel, etc. but the ajax or service user will get the proper status code to act on. Any idea how this can be achieved? I've seen other posts with similar requests but didn't see a solution that I can use. And no, I do not want a 403.

    Read the article

  • How to I serialize a large graph of .NET object into a SQL Server BLOB without creating a large bu

    - by Ian Ringrose
    We have code like: ms = New IO.MemoryStream bin = New System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.BinaryFormatter bin.Serialize(ms, largeGraphOfObjects) dataToSaveToDatabase = ms.ToArray() // put dataToSaveToDatabase in a Sql server BLOB But the memory steam allocates a large buffer from the large memory heap that is giving us problems. So how can we stream the data without needing enough free memory to hold the serialized objects. I am looking for a way to get a Stream from SQL server that can then be passed to bin.Serialize() so avoiding keeping all the data in my processes memory. Likewise for reading the data back... Some more background. This is part of a complex numerical processing system that processes data in near real time looking for equipment problems etc, the serialization is done to allow a restart when there is a problem with data quality from a data feed etc. (We store the data feeds and can rerun them after the operator has edited out bad values.) Therefore we serialize the object a lot more often then we de-serialize them. The objects we are serializing include very large arrays mostly of doubles as well as a lot of small “more normal” objects. We are pushing the memory limit on a 32 bit system and make the garage collector work very hard. (Effects are being made elsewhere in the system to improve this, e.g. reusing large arrays rather then create new arrays.) Often the serialization of the state is the last straw that courses an out of memory exception; our peak memory usage is while this serialization is being done. I think we get large memory pool fragmentation when we de-serialize the object, I expect there are also other problem with large memory pool fragmentation given the size of the arrays. (This has not yet been investigated, as the person that first looked at this is a numerical processing expert, not a memory management expert.) Are customers use a mix of Sql Server 2000, 2005 and 2008 and we would rather not have different code paths for each version of Sql Server if possible. We can have many active models at a time (in different process, across many machines), each model can have many saved states. Hence the saved state is stored in a database blob rather then a file. As the spread of saving the state is important, I would rather not serialize the object to a file, and then put the file in a BLOB one block at a time. Other related questions I have asked How to Stream data from/to SQL Server BLOB fields? Is there a SqlFileStream like class that works with Sql Server 2005?

    Read the article

  • DOM + need to remove element from XML bt VB script

    - by yael
    I have the following VB script , I want to remove the "NET ID" element from name list but after running the VB script the "NET ID" element still exist in the XML doc? Something wrong in the VB? Yael Set objXMLDoc = CreateObject("Microsoft.XMLDOM") objXMLDoc.async = False objXMLDoc.load("\dir\d.xml") Set objRoot = objXMLDoc.documentElement Set objExNode = objRoot.removeChild(objRoot.childNodes.item(0)) objRoot.appendChild(objExNode) the XML file:

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET: disabling authentication for a single aspx page (custom error page)?

    - by Richard Collette
    I am using a custom error page: <customErrors redirectMode="ResponseRedirect" mode="On" defaultRedirect="Error2.aspx"/> I want to disable authentication for the custom error page because the error being raised is related to an authentication module and I don't want to get into an infinite loop and I want to display a clean error page to the user. I have been trying the following configuration to do that. <location path="Error2.aspx"> <system.web> <authentication mode="None"/> <authorization> <allow users="?"/> <allow users="*"/> </authorization> </system.web> </location> I am getting a System.Configuration.ConfigurationErrorsException for the line that sets the authentication mode. It is an error to use a section registered as allowDefinition='MachineToApplication' beyond application level. This error can be caused by a virtual directory not being configured as an application in IIS. I have verified that there are no other web.config files in subdirectories under the application's folder. The applications folder is configured as an application in IIS and the error page is at the application's root. File permissions set for the error page in IIS include anonymous and windows authentication (I have tried just anonymous as well).

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: How do I validate a model wrapped in a ViewModel?

    - by Deniz Dogan
    For the login page of my website I would like to list the latest news for my site and also display a few fields to let the user log in. So I figured I should make a login view model - I call this LoginVM. LoginVM contains a Login model for the login fields and a List<NewsItem> for the news listing. This is the Login model: public class Login { [Required(ErrorMessage="Enter a username.")] [DisplayName("Username")] public string Username { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage="Enter a password.")] [DataType(DataType.Password)] [DisplayName("Password")] public string Password { get; set; } } This is the LoginVM view model: public class LoginVM { public Login login { get; set; } public List<NewsItem> newsItems { get; set; } } This is where I get stuck. In my login controller, I get passed a LoginVM. [HttpPost] public ActionResult Login(LoginVM model, FormCollection form) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { // What? In the code I'm checking whether ModelState is valid and this would work fine if the view model was actually the Login model, but now it's LoginVM which has no validation attributes at all. How do I make LoginVM "traverse" through its members to validate them all? Am I doing something fundamentally wrong using ModelState in this manner?

    Read the article

  • What does ~ in the beginning of an URL in asp.net exactly do ?

    - by MarceloRamires
    I am editing a certain website which before used the port 80 (default) that was not required at the url (because it's default..) But the port had (for technical reasons) to be changed, and now it has to be informed. I can access the main page through ip:port\page like this: 1.2.3.4:81\page.aspx Every link in the website is composed like this: <asp:HyperLink runat="server" Text="random" NavigateUrl="~/fdr/whatever.aspx" /> And whenever I click on a link, the page doesn't load, but the URL is composed on the URL bar of the browser, then I simply add ":80" after the IP in the URL and it works. Due to the existance of querystrings (in other words, for already having access to the URL) I before thought that '~' in the beginning of a URL in a link was saying "keep in the same website, just change to this webpage in this folder", but if the port vanishes, I assume now that the address is requested (probably to IIS) the location of the current website. I want to know then (instead of having to add the port to each link in my website) how do I set up whoever is requested by the ~ in the link to add the port somehow. How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • How to add validation errors in the validation collection asp.net mvc?

    - by johndoe
    Inside my controller's action I have the following code: public ActionResult GridAction(string id) { if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(id)) { // add errors to the errors collection and then return the view saying that you cannot select the dropdownlist value with the "Please Select" option } return View(); UPDATE: if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(id)) { // add error ModelState.AddModelError("GridActionDropDownList", "Please select an option"); return RedirectToAction("Orders"); } } UPDATE 2: Here is my updated code: @Html.DropDownListFor(x => x.SelectedGridAction, Model.GridActions,"Please Select") @Html.ValidationMessageFor(x => x.SelectedGridAction) The Model looks like the following: public class MyInvoicesViewModel { private List<SelectListItem> _gridActions; public int CurrentGridAction { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Please select an option")] public string SelectedGridAction { get; set; } public List<SelectListItem> GridActions { get { _gridActions = new List<SelectListItem>(); _gridActions.Add(new SelectListItem() { Text = "Export to Excel", Value = "1"}); return _gridActions; } } } And here is my controller action: public ActionResult GridAction(string id) { if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(id)) { // add error ModelState.AddModelError("SelectedGridAction", "Please select an option"); return RedirectToAction("Orders"); } return View(); } Nothing happens! I am totally lost on this one! UPDATE 3: I am now using the following code but still the validation is not firing: public ActionResult GridAction(string id) { var myViewModel= new MyViewModel(); myViewModel.SelectedGridAction = id; // id is passed as null if (!ModelState.IsValid) { return View("Orders"); }

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC Page - Viewstate for Confirm email field is getting erased on Registration Page if valid

    - by Rita
    Hi I have a Registaration page with the following fields Email, Confirm Email, Password and Confrim Password. On Register Button click and post the model to the server, the Model validates and if that Email is already Registered, it displays the Validation Error Message "User already Exists. Please Login or Register with a different email ID". While we are displaying this validation error message, I am loosing the value of "Confirm Email" field. So that the user has to reenter again and I want to avoid this. Here I don't have confirm_Email field in my Model. Is there something special that has to be done to remain Confirm Email value on the Page even in case of Validation failure? Appreciate your responses. Here is my Code: <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(false) %> <fieldset> <div class="cssform"> <p> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Email)%><em>*</em> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Email, new { @class = "required email" })%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Email)%> </p> <p> <%= Html.Label("Confirm email")%><em>*</em> <%= Html.TextBox("confirm_email")%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("confirm_email") %> </p> <p> <%= Html.Label("Password")%><em>*</em> <%= Html.Password("Password", null, new { @class = "required" })%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("Password")%><br /> (Note: Password should be minimum 6 characters) </p> <p> <%= Html.Label("Confirm Password")%><em>*</em> <%= Html.Password("confirm_password")%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("confirm_password") %> </p><hr /> <p>Note: Confirmation email will be sent to the email address listed above.</p> </fieldset> <% } %>

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC - View with master page, how to set title?

    - by bh213
    What is prefered way of setting html title (in head) for view when using master pages? One way is by using Page.Title in .aspx file, but that requires in master page which can mess with HTML code. So, lets assume no server side controls, only pure html. Any better ideas? UPDATE: I would like to set title in view NOT in the controller or model.

    Read the article

  • Ado.net Fill method not throwing error on running a Stored Procedure that does not exist.

    - by Mike
    I am using a combination of the Enterprise library and the original Fill method of ADO. This is because I need to open and close the command connection myself as I am capture the event Info Message Here is my code so far // Set Up Command SqlDatabase db = new SqlDatabase(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[ConnectionName].ConnectionString); SqlCommand command = db.GetStoredProcCommand(StoredProcName) as SqlCommand; command.Connection = db.CreateConnection() as SqlConnection; // Set Up Events for Logging command.StatementCompleted += new StatementCompletedEventHandler(command_StatementCompleted); command.Connection.FireInfoMessageEventOnUserErrors = true; command.Connection.InfoMessage += new SqlInfoMessageEventHandler(Connection_InfoMessage); // Add Parameters foreach (Parameter parameter in Parameters) { db.AddInParameter(command, parameter.Name, (System.Data.DbType)Enum.Parse(typeof(System.Data.DbType), parameter.Type), parameter.Value); } // Use the Old Style fill to keep the connection Open througout the population // and manage the Statement Complete and InfoMessage events SqlDataAdapter da = new SqlDataAdapter(command); DataSet ds = new DataSet(); // Open Connection command.Connection.Open(); // Populate da.Fill(ds); // Dispose of the adapter if (da != null) { da.Dispose(); } // If you do not explicitly close the connection here, it will leak! if (command.Connection.State == ConnectionState.Open) { command.Connection.Close(); } ... Now if I pass into the variable StoredProcName = "ThisProcDoesNotExists" And run this peice of code. The CreateCommand nor da.Fill through an error message. Why is this. The only way I can tell it did not run was that it returns a dataset with 0 tables in it. But when investigating the error it is not appearant that the procedure does not exist. EDIT Upon further investigation command.Connection.FireInfoMessageEventOnUserErrors = true; is causeing the error to be surpressed into the InfoMessage Event From BOL When you set FireInfoMessageEventOnUserErrors to true, errors that were previously treated as exceptions are now handled as InfoMessage events. All events fire immediately and are handled by the event handler. If is FireInfoMessageEventOnUserErrors is set to false, then InfoMessage events are handled at the end of the procedure. What I want is each print statement from Sql to create a new log record. Setting this property to false combines it as one big string. So if I leave the property set to true, now the question is can I discern a print message from an Error ANOTHER EDIT So now I have the code so that the flag is set to true and checking the error number in the method void Connection_InfoMessage(object sender, SqlInfoMessageEventArgs e) { // These are not really errors unless the Number >0 // if Number = 0 that is a print message foreach (SqlError sql in e.Errors) { if (sql.Number == 0) { Logger.WriteInfo("Sql Message",sql.Message); } else { // Whatever this was it was an error throw new DataException(String.Format("Message={0},Line={1},Number={2},State{3}", sql.Message, sql.LineNumber, sql.Number, sql.State)); } } } The issue now that when I throw the error it does not bubble up to the statement that made the call or even the error handler that is above that. It just bombs out on that line The populate looks like // Populate try { da.Fill(ds); } catch (Exception e) { throw new Exception(e.Message, e); } Now even though I see the calling codes and methods still in the Call Stack, this exception does not seem to bubble up?

    Read the article

  • ASP.net MVC 2.0 using the same form for adding and editing.

    - by Chevex
    I would like to use the same view for editing a blog post and adding a blog post. However, I'm having an issue with the ID. When adding a blog post, I have no need for an ID value to be posted. When model binding binds the form values to the BlogPost object in the controller, it will auto-generate the ID in entity framework entity. When I am editing a blog post I DO need a hidden form field to store the ID in so that it accompanies the next form post. Here is the view I have right now. <% using (Html.BeginForm("CommitEditBlogPost", "Admin")) { %> <% if (Model != null) { %> <%: Html.HiddenFor(x => x.Id)%> <% } %> Title:<br /> <%: Html.TextBoxFor(x => x.Title, new { Style = "Width: 90%;" })%> <br /> <br /> Summary:<br /> <%: Html.TextAreaFor(x => x.Summary, new { Style = "Width: 90%; Height: 50px;" }) %> <br /> <br /> Body:<br /> <%: Html.TextAreaFor(x => x.Body, new { Style = "Height: 250px; Width: 90%;" })%> <br /> <br /> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> Right now checking if the model is coming in NULL is a great way to know if I'm editing a blog post or adding one, because when I'm adding one it will be null as it hasn't been created yet. The problem comes in when there is an error and the entity is invalid. When the controller renders the form after an invalid model the Model != null evaluates to false, even though we are editing a post and there is clearly a model. If I render the hidden input field for ID when adding a post, I get an error stating that the ID can't be null. Any help is appreciated. EDIT: I went with OJ's answer for this question, however I discovered something that made me feel silly and I wanted to share it just in case anyone was having a similar issue. The page the adds/edits blogs does not even need a hidden field for id, ever. The reason is because when I go to add a blog I do a GET to this relative URL BlogProject/Admin/AddBlogPost This URL does not contain an ID and the action method just renders the page. The page does a POST to the same URL when adding the blog post. The incoming BlogPost entity has a null Id and is generated by EF during save changes. The same thing happens when I edit blog posts. The URL is BlogProject/Admin/EditBlogPost/{Id} This URL contains the id of the blog post and since the page is posting back to the exact same URL the id goes with the POST to the action method that executes the edit. The only problem I encountered with this is that the action methods cannot have identical signatures. [HttpGet] public ViewResult EditBlogPost(int Id) { } [HttpPost] public ViewResult EditBlogPost(int Id) { } The compiler will yell at you if you try to use these two methods above. It is far too convenient that the Id will be posted back when doing a Html.BeginForm() with no arguments for action or controller. So rather than change the name of the POST method I just modified the arguments to include a FormCollection. Like this: [HttpPost] public ViewResult EditBlogPost(int Id, FormCollection formCollection) { // You can then use formCollection as the IValueProvider for UpdateModel() // and TryUpdateModel() if you wish. I mean, you might as well use the // argument since you're taking it. } The formCollection variable is filled via model binding with the same content that Request.Form would be by default. You don't have to use this collection for UpdateModel() or TryUpdateModel() but I did just so I didn't feel like that collection was pointless since it really was just to make the method signature different from its GET counterpart. Thanks for the help guys!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211  | Next Page >