Search Results

Search found 54077 results on 2164 pages for 'asp net webmethod'.

Page 444/2164 | < Previous Page | 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451  | Next Page >

  • Unable to cast transparent proxy to type &lt;type&gt;

    - by Rick Strahl
    This is not the first time I've run into this wonderful error while creating new AppDomains in .NET and then trying to load types and access them across App Domains. In almost all cases the problem I've run into with this error the problem comes from the two AppDomains involved loading different copies of the same type. Unless the types match exactly and come exactly from the same assembly the typecast will fail. The most common scenario is that the types are loaded from different assemblies - as unlikely as that sounds. An Example of Failure To give some context, I'm working on some old code in Html Help Builder that creates a new AppDomain in order to parse assembly information for documentation purposes. I create a new AppDomain in order to load up an assembly process it and then immediately unload it along with the AppDomain. The AppDomain allows for unloading that otherwise wouldn't be possible as well as isolating my code from the assembly that's being loaded. The process to accomplish this is fairly established and I use it for lots of applications that use add-in like functionality - basically anywhere where code needs to be isolated and have the ability to be unloaded. My pattern for this is: Create a new AppDomain Load a Factory Class into the AppDomain Use the Factory Class to load additional types from the remote domain Here's the relevant code from my TypeParserFactory that creates a domain and then loads a specific type - TypeParser - that is accessed cross-AppDomain in the parent domain:public class TypeParserFactory : System.MarshalByRefObject,IDisposable { …/// <summary> /// TypeParser Factory method that loads the TypeParser /// object into a new AppDomain so it can be unloaded. /// Creates AppDomain and creates type. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> public TypeParser CreateTypeParser() { if (!CreateAppDomain(null)) return null; /// Create the instance inside of the new AppDomain /// Note: remote domain uses local EXE's AppBasePath!!! TypeParser parser = null; try { Assembly assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); string assemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; parser = (TypeParser) this.LocalAppDomain.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, typeof(TypeParser).FullName).Unwrap(); } catch (Exception ex) { this.ErrorMessage = ex.GetBaseException().Message; return null; } return parser; } private bool CreateAppDomain(string lcAppDomain) { if (lcAppDomain == null) lcAppDomain = "wwReflection" + Guid.NewGuid().ToString().GetHashCode().ToString("x"); AppDomainSetup setup = new AppDomainSetup(); // *** Point at current directory setup.ApplicationBase = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory; //setup.PrivateBinPath = Path.Combine(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "bin"); this.LocalAppDomain = AppDomain.CreateDomain(lcAppDomain,null,setup); // Need a custom resolver so we can load assembly from non current path AppDomain.CurrentDomain.AssemblyResolve += new ResolveEventHandler(CurrentDomain_AssemblyResolve); return true; } …} Note that the classes must be either [Serializable] (by value) or inherit from MarshalByRefObject in order to be accessible remotely. Here I need to call methods on the remote object so all classes are MarshalByRefObject. The specific problem code is the loading up a new type which points at an assembly that visible both in the current domain and the remote domain and then instantiates a type from it. This is the code in question:Assembly assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); string assemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; parser = (TypeParser) this.LocalAppDomain.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, typeof(TypeParser).FullName).Unwrap(); The last line of code is what blows up with the Unable to cast transparent proxy to type <type> error. Without the cast the code actually returns a TransparentProxy instance, but the cast is what blows up. In other words I AM in fact getting a TypeParser instance back but it can't be cast to the TypeParser type that is loaded in the current AppDomain. Finding the Problem To see what's going on I tried using the .NET 4.0 dynamic type on the result and lo and behold it worked with dynamic - the value returned is actually a TypeParser instance: Assembly assembly = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); string assemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; object objparser = this.LocalAppDomain.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, typeof(TypeParser).FullName).Unwrap(); // dynamic works dynamic dynParser = objparser; string info = dynParser.GetVersionInfo(); // method call works // casting fails parser = (TypeParser)objparser; So clearly a TypeParser type is coming back, but nevertheless it's not the right one. Hmmm… mysterious.Another couple of tries reveal the problem however:// works dynamic dynParser = objparser; string info = dynParser.GetVersionInfo(); // method call works // c:\wwapps\wwhelp\wwReflection20.dll (Current Execution Folder) string info3 = typeof(TypeParser).Assembly.CodeBase; // c:\program files\vfp9\wwReflection20.dll (my COM client EXE's folder) string info4 = dynParser.GetType().Assembly.CodeBase; // fails parser = (TypeParser)objparser; As you can see the second value is coming from a totally different assembly. Note that this is even though I EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED an assembly path to load the assembly from! Instead .NET decided to load the assembly from the original ApplicationBase folder. Ouch! How I actually tracked this down was a little more tedious: I added a method like this to both the factory and the instance types and then compared notes:public string GetVersionInfo() { return ".NET Version: " + Environment.Version.ToString() + "\r\n" + "wwReflection Assembly: " + typeof(TypeParserFactory).Assembly.CodeBase.Replace("file:///", "").Replace("/", "\\") + "\r\n" + "Assembly Cur Dir: " + Directory.GetCurrentDirectory() + "\r\n" + "ApplicationBase: " + AppDomain.CurrentDomain.SetupInformation.ApplicationBase + "\r\n" + "App Domain: " + AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName + "\r\n"; } For the factory I got: .NET Version: 4.0.30319.239wwReflection Assembly: c:\wwapps\wwhelp\bin\wwreflection20.dllAssembly Cur Dir: c:\wwapps\wwhelpApplicationBase: C:\Programs\vfp9\App Domain: wwReflection534cfa1f For the instance type I got: .NET Version: 4.0.30319.239wwReflection Assembly: C:\\Programs\\vfp9\wwreflection20.dllAssembly Cur Dir: c:\\wwapps\\wwhelpApplicationBase: C:\\Programs\\vfp9\App Domain: wwDotNetBridge_56006605 which clearly shows the problem. You can see that both are loading from different appDomains but the each is loading the assembly from a different location. Probably a better solution yet (for ANY kind of assembly loading problem) is to use the .NET Fusion Log Viewer to trace assembly loads.The Fusion viewer will show a load trace for each assembly loaded and where it's looking to find it. Here's what the viewer looks like: The last trace above that I found for the second wwReflection20 load (the one that is wonky) looks like this:*** Assembly Binder Log Entry (1/13/2012 @ 3:06:49 AM) *** The operation was successful. Bind result: hr = 0x0. The operation completed successfully. Assembly manager loaded from: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\V4.0.30319\clr.dll Running under executable c:\programs\vfp9\vfp9.exe --- A detailed error log follows. === Pre-bind state information === LOG: User = Ras\ricks LOG: DisplayName = wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null (Fully-specified) LOG: Appbase = file:///C:/Programs/vfp9/ LOG: Initial PrivatePath = NULL LOG: Dynamic Base = NULL LOG: Cache Base = NULL LOG: AppName = vfp9.exe Calling assembly : (Unknown). === LOG: This bind starts in default load context. LOG: Using application configuration file: C:\Programs\vfp9\vfp9.exe.Config LOG: Using host configuration file: LOG: Using machine configuration file from C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\V4.0.30319\config\machine.config. LOG: Policy not being applied to reference at this time (private, custom, partial, or location-based assembly bind). LOG: Attempting download of new URL file:///C:/Programs/vfp9/wwReflection20.DLL. LOG: Assembly download was successful. Attempting setup of file: C:\Programs\vfp9\wwReflection20.dll LOG: Entering run-from-source setup phase. LOG: Assembly Name is: wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null LOG: Binding succeeds. Returns assembly from C:\Programs\vfp9\wwReflection20.dll. LOG: Assembly is loaded in default load context. WRN: The same assembly was loaded into multiple contexts of an application domain: WRN: Context: Default | Domain ID: 2 | Assembly Name: wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null WRN: Context: LoadFrom | Domain ID: 2 | Assembly Name: wwReflection20, Version=4.61.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null WRN: This might lead to runtime failures. WRN: It is recommended to inspect your application on whether this is intentional or not. WRN: See whitepaper http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=109270 for more information and common solutions to this issue. Notice that the fusion log clearly shows that the .NET loader makes no attempt to even load the assembly from the path I explicitly specified. Remember your Assembly Locations As mentioned earlier all failures I've seen like this ultimately resulted from different versions of the same type being available in the two AppDomains. At first sight that seems ridiculous - how could the types be different and why would you have multiple assemblies - but there are actually a number of scenarios where it's quite possible to have multiple copies of the same assembly floating around in multiple places. If you're hosting different environments (like hosting the Razor Engine, or ASP.NET Runtime for example) it's common to create a private BIN folder and it's important to make sure that there's no overlap of assemblies. In my case of Html Help Builder the problem started because I'm using COM interop to access the .NET assembly and the above code. COM Interop has very specific requirements on where assemblies can be found and because I was mucking around with the loader code today, I ended up moving assemblies around to a new location for explicit loading. The explicit load works in the main AppDomain, but failed in the remote domain as I showed. The solution here was simple enough: Delete the extraneous assembly which was left around by accident. Not a common problem, but one that when it bites is pretty nasty to figure out because it seems so unlikely that types wouldn't match. I know I've run into this a few times and writing this down hopefully will make me remember in the future rather than poking around again for an hour trying to debug the issue as I did today. Hopefully it'll save some of you some time as well in the future.© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in .NET  COM   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Speaking in Sweden in April

    - by Fabrice Marguerie
    As this is my first post in 2011, I wish you all the best for this new year. I don't know for you, but it will be a year of changes for me. I'll tell you more about that when the time comes. For the time being, I just wanted to announce my next speaking engagement: I'll be presenting at SDC2011, the Scandinavian Developer Conference. This event will take place on April 4 and 5 in Göteborg, Sweden. My session will be based on my article about memory leaks: How to detect and avoid memory and resources leaks in .NET applicationsDuring this session we will analyze the most common leak sources in .NET applications and we will see how to detect them in practice. We will demonstrate with live examples several tools that can help you to troubleshoot your applications. The goal of this session is to help you fix and avoid leaks in your .NET applications, whether they are built with Windows Forms, WPF, Silverlight, ASP.NET, or as console or Windows services. You will also get advices on how to improve your applications so they become less greedy. I hope to see you there if you're around in April :-)

    Read the article

  • Creating an ASP.NET Database using MS SQL 2008 in Visual Web Developer 2008

    This article illustrates how to create a database in ASP.NET. We ll be using Microsoft SQL Server 2 8 and developing it in Visual Web Developer Express 2 8. Given the importance of databases to most websites nowadays you should find this information useful when building just about any website based on Microsoft technology.... Email Marketing Software No Mthly Fees - Powerful email marketing software that installs on your server.

    Read the article

  • Retrieving Data from Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Using ASP.NET 3.5

    Most of the web applications on the Internet require retrieving data from a database. Almost all websites today are database-driven so it is of primary importance for any developer to retrieve data from a website s database and display it on the web browser. This article illustrates basic ways of retrieving data from Microsoft SQL Server 2 8 using the ASP.NET 3.5 web platform.... Download a Free Trial of Windows 7 Reduce Management Costs and Improve Productivity with Windows 7

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET 3.5 User Input Validation Basics

    User input validation is an essential and a requirement for any web application deployed on the Internet. This is because on the Internet no can be sure that the user will enter the required inputs in the correct format type and values. This is especially true for a confused web application user and some malicious users. This article series will show you how validate user input in ASP.NET.... Cloud Servers in Demand - GoGrid Start Small and Grow with Your Business. $0.10/hour

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: The Generic Func Delegates

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Back in one of my three original “Little Wonders” Trilogy of posts, I had listed generic delegates as one of the Little Wonders of .NET.  Later, someone posted a comment saying said that they would love more detail on the generic delegates and their uses, since my original entry just scratched the surface of them. Last week, I began our look at some of the handy generic delegates built into .NET with a description of delegates in general, and the Action family of delegates.  For this week, I’ll launch into a look at the Func family of generic delegates and how they can be used to support generic, reusable algorithms and classes. Quick Delegate Recap Delegates are similar to function pointers in C++ in that they allow you to store a reference to a method.  They can store references to either static or instance methods, and can actually be used to chain several methods together in one delegate. Delegates are very type-safe and can be satisfied with any standard method, anonymous method, or a lambda expression.  They can also be null as well (refers to no method), so care should be taken to make sure that the delegate is not null before you invoke it. Delegates are defined using the keyword delegate, where the delegate’s type name is placed where you would typically place the method name: 1: // This delegate matches any method that takes string, returns nothing 2: public delegate void Log(string message); This delegate defines a delegate type named Log that can be used to store references to any method(s) that satisfies its signature (whether instance, static, lambda expression, etc.). Delegate instances then can be assigned zero (null) or more methods using the operator = which replaces the existing delegate chain, or by using the operator += which adds a method to the end of a delegate chain: 1: // creates a delegate instance named currentLogger defaulted to Console.WriteLine (static method) 2: Log currentLogger = Console.Out.WriteLine; 3:  4: // invokes the delegate, which writes to the console out 5: currentLogger("Hi Standard Out!"); 6:  7: // append a delegate to Console.Error.WriteLine to go to std error 8: currentLogger += Console.Error.WriteLine; 9:  10: // invokes the delegate chain and writes message to std out and std err 11: currentLogger("Hi Standard Out and Error!"); While delegates give us a lot of power, it can be cumbersome to re-create fairly standard delegate definitions repeatedly, for this purpose the generic delegates were introduced in various stages in .NET.  These support various method types with particular signatures. Note: a caveat with generic delegates is that while they can support multiple parameters, they do not match methods that contains ref or out parameters. If you want to a delegate to represent methods that takes ref or out parameters, you will need to create a custom delegate. We’ve got the Func… delegates Just like it’s cousin, the Action delegate family, the Func delegate family gives us a lot of power to use generic delegates to make classes and algorithms more generic.  Using them keeps us from having to define a new delegate type when need to make a class or algorithm generic. Remember that the point of the Action delegate family was to be able to perform an “action” on an item, with no return results.  Thus Action delegates can be used to represent most methods that take 0 to 16 arguments but return void.  You can assign a method The Func delegate family was introduced in .NET 3.5 with the advent of LINQ, and gives us the power to define a function that can be called on 0 to 16 arguments and returns a result.  Thus, the main difference between Action and Func, from a delegate perspective, is that Actions return nothing, but Funcs return a result. The Func family of delegates have signatures as follows: Func<TResult> – matches a method that takes no arguments, and returns value of type TResult. Func<T, TResult> – matches a method that takes an argument of type T, and returns value of type TResult. Func<T1, T2, TResult> – matches a method that takes arguments of type T1 and T2, and returns value of type TResult. Func<T1, T2, …, TResult> – and so on up to 16 arguments, and returns value of type TResult. These are handy because they quickly allow you to be able to specify that a method or class you design will perform a function to produce a result as long as the method you specify meets the signature. For example, let’s say you were designing a generic aggregator, and you wanted to allow the user to define how the values will be aggregated into the result (i.e. Sum, Min, Max, etc…).  To do this, we would ask the user of our class to pass in a method that would take the current total, the next value, and produce a new total.  A class like this could look like: 1: public sealed class Aggregator<TValue, TResult> 2: { 3: // holds method that takes previous result, combines with next value, creates new result 4: private Func<TResult, TValue, TResult> _aggregationMethod; 5:  6: // gets or sets the current result of aggregation 7: public TResult Result { get; private set; } 8:  9: // construct the aggregator given the method to use to aggregate values 10: public Aggregator(Func<TResult, TValue, TResult> aggregationMethod = null) 11: { 12: if (aggregationMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("aggregationMethod"); 13:  14: _aggregationMethod = aggregationMethod; 15: } 16:  17: // method to add next value 18: public void Aggregate(TValue nextValue) 19: { 20: // performs the aggregation method function on the current result and next and sets to current result 21: Result = _aggregationMethod(Result, nextValue); 22: } 23: } Of course, LINQ already has an Aggregate extension method, but that works on a sequence of IEnumerable<T>, whereas this is designed to work more with aggregating single results over time (such as keeping track of a max response time for a service). We could then use this generic aggregator to find the sum of a series of values over time, or the max of a series of values over time (among other things): 1: // creates an aggregator that adds the next to the total to sum the values 2: var sumAggregator = new Aggregator<int, int>((total, next) => total + next); 3:  4: // creates an aggregator (using static method) that returns the max of previous result and next 5: var maxAggregator = new Aggregator<int, int>(Math.Max); So, if we were timing the response time of a web method every time it was called, we could pass that response time to both of these aggregators to get an idea of the total time spent in that web method, and the max time spent in any one call to the web method: 1: // total will be 13 and max 13 2: int responseTime = 13; 3: sumAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 4: maxAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 5:  6: // total will be 20 and max still 13 7: responseTime = 7; 8: sumAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 9: maxAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 10:  11: // total will be 40 and max now 20 12: responseTime = 20; 13: sumAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 14: maxAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); The Func delegate family is useful for making generic algorithms and classes, and in particular allows the caller of the method or user of the class to specify a function to be performed in order to generate a result. What is the result of a Func delegate chain? If you remember, we said earlier that you can assign multiple methods to a delegate by using the += operator to chain them.  So how does this affect delegates such as Func that return a value, when applied to something like the code below? 1: Func<int, int, int> combo = null; 2:  3: // What if we wanted to aggregate the sum and max together? 4: combo += (total, next) => total + next; 5: combo += Math.Max; 6:  7: // what is the result? 8: var comboAggregator = new Aggregator<int, int>(combo); Well, in .NET if you chain multiple methods in a delegate, they will all get invoked, but the result of the delegate is the result of the last method invoked in the chain.  Thus, this aggregator would always result in the Math.Max() result.  The other chained method (the sum) gets executed first, but it’s result is thrown away: 1: // result is 13 2: int responseTime = 13; 3: comboAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 4:  5: // result is still 13 6: responseTime = 7; 7: comboAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); 8:  9: // result is now 20 10: responseTime = 20; 11: comboAggregator.Aggregate(responseTime); So remember, you can chain multiple Func (or other delegates that return values) together, but if you do so you will only get the last executed result. Func delegates and co-variance/contra-variance in .NET 4.0 Just like the Action delegate, as of .NET 4.0, the Func delegate family is contra-variant on its arguments.  In addition, it is co-variant on its return type.  To support this, in .NET 4.0 the signatures of the Func delegates changed to: Func<out TResult> – matches a method that takes no arguments, and returns value of type TResult (or a more derived type). Func<in T, out TResult> – matches a method that takes an argument of type T (or a less derived type), and returns value of type TResult(or a more derived type). Func<in T1, in T2, out TResult> – matches a method that takes arguments of type T1 and T2 (or less derived types), and returns value of type TResult (or a more derived type). Func<in T1, in T2, …, out TResult> – and so on up to 16 arguments, and returns value of type TResult (or a more derived type). Notice the addition of the in and out keywords before each of the generic type placeholders.  As we saw last week, the in keyword is used to specify that a generic type can be contra-variant -- it can match the given type or a type that is less derived.  However, the out keyword, is used to specify that a generic type can be co-variant -- it can match the given type or a type that is more derived. On contra-variance, if you are saying you need an function that will accept a string, you can just as easily give it an function that accepts an object.  In other words, if you say “give me an function that will process dogs”, I could pass you a method that will process any animal, because all dogs are animals.  On the co-variance side, if you are saying you need a function that returns an object, you can just as easily pass it a function that returns a string because any string returned from the given method can be accepted by a delegate expecting an object result, since string is more derived.  Once again, in other words, if you say “give me a method that creates an animal”, I can pass you a method that will create a dog, because all dogs are animals. It really all makes sense, you can pass a more specific thing to a less specific parameter, and you can return a more specific thing as a less specific result.  In other words, pay attention to the direction the item travels (parameters go in, results come out).  Keeping that in mind, you can always pass more specific things in and return more specific things out. For example, in the code below, we have a method that takes a Func<object> to generate an object, but we can pass it a Func<string> because the return type of object can obviously accept a return value of string as well: 1: // since Func<object> is co-variant, this will access Func<string>, etc... 2: public static string Sequence(int count, Func<object> generator) 3: { 4: var builder = new StringBuilder(); 5:  6: for (int i=0; i<count; i++) 7: { 8: object value = generator(); 9: builder.Append(value); 10: } 11:  12: return builder.ToString(); 13: } Even though the method above takes a Func<object>, we can pass a Func<string> because the TResult type placeholder is co-variant and accepts types that are more derived as well: 1: // delegate that's typed to return string. 2: Func<string> stringGenerator = () => DateTime.Now.ToString(); 3:  4: // This will work in .NET 4.0, but not in previous versions 5: Sequence(100, stringGenerator); Previous versions of .NET implemented some forms of co-variance and contra-variance before, but .NET 4.0 goes one step further and allows you to pass or assign an Func<A, BResult> to a Func<Y, ZResult> as long as A is less derived (or same) as Y, and BResult is more derived (or same) as ZResult. Sidebar: The Func and the Predicate A method that takes one argument and returns a bool is generally thought of as a predicate.  Predicates are used to examine an item and determine whether that item satisfies a particular condition.  Predicates are typically unary, but you may also have binary and other predicates as well. Predicates are often used to filter results, such as in the LINQ Where() extension method: 1: var numbers = new[] { 1, 2, 4, 13, 8, 10, 27 }; 2:  3: // call Where() using a predicate which determines if the number is even 4: var evens = numbers.Where(num => num % 2 == 0); As of .NET 3.5, predicates are typically represented as Func<T, bool> where T is the type of the item to examine.  Previous to .NET 3.5, there was a Predicate<T> type that tended to be used (which we’ll discuss next week) and is still supported, but most developers recommend using Func<T, bool> now, as it prevents confusion with overloads that accept unary predicates and binary predicates, etc.: 1: // this seems more confusing as an overload set, because of Predicate vs Func 2: public static SomeMethod(Predicate<int> unaryPredicate) { } 3: public static SomeMethod(Func<int, int, bool> binaryPredicate) { } 4:  5: // this seems more consistent as an overload set, since just uses Func 6: public static SomeMethod(Func<int, bool> unaryPredicate) { } 7: public static SomeMethod(Func<int, int, bool> binaryPredicate) { } Also, even though Predicate<T> and Func<T, bool> match the same signatures, they are separate types!  Thus you cannot assign a Predicate<T> instance to a Func<T, bool> instance and vice versa: 1: // the same method, lambda expression, etc can be assigned to both 2: Predicate<int> isEven = i => (i % 2) == 0; 3: Func<int, bool> alsoIsEven = i => (i % 2) == 0; 4:  5: // but the delegate instances cannot be directly assigned, strongly typed! 6: // ERROR: cannot convert type... 7: isEven = alsoIsEven; 8:  9: // however, you can assign by wrapping in a new instance: 10: isEven = new Predicate<int>(alsoIsEven); 11: alsoIsEven = new Func<int, bool>(isEven); So, the general advice that seems to come from most developers is that Predicate<T> is still supported, but we should use Func<T, bool> for consistency in .NET 3.5 and above. Sidebar: Func as a Generator for Unit Testing One area of difficulty in unit testing can be unit testing code that is based on time of day.  We’d still want to unit test our code to make sure the logic is accurate, but we don’t want the results of our unit tests to be dependent on the time they are run. One way (of many) around this is to create an internal generator that will produce the “current” time of day.  This would default to returning result from DateTime.Now (or some other method), but we could inject specific times for our unit testing.  Generators are typically methods that return (generate) a value for use in a class/method. For example, say we are creating a CacheItem<T> class that represents an item in the cache, and we want to make sure the item shows as expired if the age is more than 30 seconds.  Such a class could look like: 1: // responsible for maintaining an item of type T in the cache 2: public sealed class CacheItem<T> 3: { 4: // helper method that returns the current time 5: private static Func<DateTime> _timeGenerator = () => DateTime.Now; 6:  7: // allows internal access to the time generator 8: internal static Func<DateTime> TimeGenerator 9: { 10: get { return _timeGenerator; } 11: set { _timeGenerator = value; } 12: } 13:  14: // time the item was cached 15: public DateTime CachedTime { get; private set; } 16:  17: // the item cached 18: public T Value { get; private set; } 19:  20: // item is expired if older than 30 seconds 21: public bool IsExpired 22: { 23: get { return _timeGenerator() - CachedTime > TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30.0); } 24: } 25:  26: // creates the new cached item, setting cached time to "current" time 27: public CacheItem(T value) 28: { 29: Value = value; 30: CachedTime = _timeGenerator(); 31: } 32: } Then, we can use this construct to unit test our CacheItem<T> without any time dependencies: 1: var baseTime = DateTime.Now; 2:  3: // start with current time stored above (so doesn't drift) 4: CacheItem<int>.TimeGenerator = () => baseTime; 5:  6: var target = new CacheItem<int>(13); 7:  8: // now add 15 seconds, should still be non-expired 9: CacheItem<int>.TimeGenerator = () => baseTime.AddSeconds(15); 10:  11: Assert.IsFalse(target.IsExpired); 12:  13: // now add 31 seconds, should now be expired 14: CacheItem<int>.TimeGenerator = () => baseTime.AddSeconds(31); 15:  16: Assert.IsTrue(target.IsExpired); Now we can unit test for 1 second before, 1 second after, 1 millisecond before, 1 day after, etc.  Func delegates can be a handy tool for this type of value generation to support more testable code.  Summary Generic delegates give us a lot of power to make truly generic algorithms and classes.  The Func family of delegates is a great way to be able to specify functions to calculate a result based on 0-16 arguments.  Stay tuned in the weeks that follow for other generic delegates in the .NET Framework!   Tweet Technorati Tags: .NET, C#, CSharp, Little Wonders, Generics, Func, Delegates

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET 3.5 Loop Control Structures Using Visual Basic

    Loop statements are one of the most important control structures in any programming language. Control structures are used to control or alter the flow of the program depending on a given situation. This article acquaints you with the most important loop statements and how to use them when developing ASP.NET web applications.... Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Simplify Administration and Deployment of Messaging - Free Download.

    Read the article

  • Creating an ASP.NET Dynamic Web Page Using MS SQL Server 2008 Database (GridView Display)

    Dynamic pages pages that pull insert update and delete data or content from a database are extremely useful in modern websites. They provide a high level of user interactivity that improves user experience. This article will show you how to create such pages in ASP.NET that use a Microsoft SQL Server 2 8 database.... GoGrid Cloud Center Connect Cloud and Dedicated Servers on Your Private Data Center

    Read the article

  • Four New Videos on ASP.NET MVC 2

    Microsoft?s Jon Galloway has recorded 4 new ?quick hit? videos to help you get up to speed on new features in ASP.NET MVC 2. Learn about HTML Encoding, Strongly Typed Helpers, Model Validation, and Template Customization in these newest videos.

    Read the article

  • Four New Videos on ASP.NET MVC 2

    Microsoft’s Jon Galloway has recorded 4 new “quick hit” videos to help you get up to speed on new features in ASP.NET MVC 2. Learn about HTML Encoding, Strongly Typed Helpers, Model Validation, and Template Customization in these newest videos.

    Read the article

  • Customizing ASP.NET MVC 2 - Metadata and Validation

    In this article, you will learn about two major extensibility points of ASP.NET MVC 2, the ModelMetadataProvider and the ModelValidatorProvider. These two APIs control how templates are rendered, as well as server-side & client side validation of your model objects.

    Read the article

  • [News] ASP.NET V4 proposera des outils SEO pour le r?f?rencement

    Dans son dernier billet, Scott Guthrie pr?sente les nouveaut?s de ASP.NET V4 concernant la gestion du r?f?rencement, un sujet souvent d?licat dans les framework web modernes. Il ?voque de nouvelles propri?t?s de r?f?rencement permettant de g?n?rer des tags m?ta, un nouveau proc?d? de routage inter-pages et un Toolkit sp?cialis?.

    Read the article

  • Filtering GridView Table Rows using a Drop-Down List in ASP.NET 3.5

    In the real world ASP.NET 3.5 websites rely heavily on the MS SQL server database to display information to the browser. For the purposes of usability it is important that users can filter some information shown to them particularly large tables. This article will show you how to set up a program that lets users filter data with a GridView web control and a drop-down list.... SW Deployment Automation Best Practices Free Guide for IT Leaders: Overcoming Software Distribution & Mgmt Challenges.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451  | Next Page >