|
I have set that option,but not able to get wat i want.
please can u explain with code or give me a url please
Thank u very much
Nagraj
|
|
|
|
|
Nagaraju_Focus wrote: give me a url please
Can you give more information?
Nagaraju_Focus wrote: I have set that option,but not able to get wat i want.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.combobox.autocompletesource.aspx[^]
Formula 1 - Short for "F1 Racing" - named after the standard "help" key in Windows, it's a sport where participants desperately search through software help files trying to find actual documentation. It's tedious and somewhat cruel, most matches ending in a draw as no participant is able to find anything helpful. - Shog9
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All .I am workin in a very small company .we have our network system .We want to work on .net so tell us how n where we should install .net.
We have 20 system in which one is server .We want to use our server to work on .net and its project.
tell me exact process to .net installetion on network system . I know about single system which is work through localhost.
My server have NT 2000 operating system.
Thankyou in advance.
Life is not easy ,let's make it.
|
|
|
|
|
Install it on each machine that is going to be used for development.
I'd like to help but I am too lazy to Google it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All , i m very new in .net erra and i want work on .net So help me that where i can download latest .net framwork.
Send me url.
Thankyou in advance.
Life is not easy ,let's make it.
|
|
|
|
|
Go here[^] and do a search for downloading .net frameworks.
I'd like to help but I am too lazy to Google it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to make Outlook addin that will add one button to outlook context menu---
(VB.net / C# .net (NO C++ .net))
first,
ActiveExplorerCBars = applicationObject.ActiveExplorer.CommandBars
then
cmdbar = ActiveExplorerCBars.Item("Context Menu") 'cmdbar is commandbar object "^getting error here"
control = cmdbar.Controls.Add(MsoControlType.msoControlButton)
With control
.Caption = "kedar"
.visible = true
..... other props
End With
but i'm gettin an error that the parameter "Context Menu" is incorrect @ cmdbar = Active......
"i have seen code working in vb but not in vb.net so keep that in mind and reply for vb.net"
i've refered -- http://www.outlookcode.com/codedetail.aspx?id=526
http://www.outlookcode.com/codedetail.aspx?id=314 ?
and similar codes but they'r not of any use to me,.....
I think "Context Menu" is not a valid parameter. But accordg to other resources i've cometo know that outlook has that Named menu.
I'd like if anyone can post a code to add the button to context menu.
thnx in advance
"You can do any thing you set to your mind" - theGhost_k8
|
|
|
|
|
In VC++.Net , I have to create an VScrollBar,it usually has one Up arrow End and
One down arrow end
My Application is like this:
I have to create vscrollBar which is Having Both Up and Down arrows at both ends.
means
At UpEnd:UpArrow+DownArrow
at DownEnd:UpArrow+DownArrow
I dont know how to create These type of requirements in MC++.
Please Suggest me ,to get rid of this.
Thanks In advance
G.Nagaraju
|
|
|
|
|
You won't find any prebuilt one in the framework. I would try to inherit from VScrollBar and place two small buttons over the normal arrows and handle the click events myself. If there is not enough space to place two buttons at each end you could also make a usercontrol which contains one scrollbar and 4 buttons.
Note that issues might arise if you want to display xp-style scrollbars.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you have to do this? What is supposed to happen when you click the arrow buttons?
---
b { font-weight: normal; }
|
|
|
|
|
The Scroll Bar work at both ends,
means at the up end when u click up arrow,bar shoud go up and when down bar
should go down
and this it both sides
G.Nagaraju
|
|
|
|
|
Then we return to my first question: Why do you need to do this?
Users are generally used to how a regular scroll bar looks like and works, and I think that doubling the buttons would cause more confusion than usability.
Anyway, you have to build your own scrollbar to get that functionality.
---
b { font-weight: normal; }
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
is there a way to enumerate all (active) WindowsXP users on the target machine?
FalkoD
|
|
|
|
|
Please refer Windows Platform SDK , jump to Windows Terminal Service category
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough.
I would like to know which user accounts are existant on the target pc. Furthermore I only would like to enumerate those which users can really logon to, that is no "Guest" account if it has not been activated and not those ASP.NET server accounts, only those which would appear on the logon screen if you boot up, that's why I called them active. And unfortunately I can't find a suitable function for that in the Windows Terminal Services.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I don't think the question is far fetched, let's suppose you have a class MyObj with a New() constructor that takes one or more parameters, anything you like; now, for some reason the state of the parameters indicate that a myObj should simply not be instantiated, i.e., the code
obj = New MyObj(param)
sets obj = Nothing. In essence, the constructor is selfaware and prevents object instantiation if the conditions are not right.
Any suggestions?
PS Yes, I could evoke a System.Exception() in the constructor
Visualize then Realize
|
|
|
|
|
Because a constructor must always return a new instance of the object you might like to look at alternatives.
For example: Use the factory pattern. Specifically: use a factory method.
A factory method is one that creates an object but is not a constructor. You might create one like this:
public class MyObj
{
private MyObj()
{
}
public static CreateMyObj()
{
MyObj result = null;
if (parametersAreOkay)
{
result = new MyObj();
}
return result;
}
}
The rest of the code cannot access the constructor, and must use the CreateMyObj factory method to instantiate the object. The method may return null if the object cannot be created.
Does this help?
|
|
|
|
|
Your factory method technique is valid indeed, however, you hit my question on the mark with the statement:
>>>...a constructor must always return a new instance of the object...
It would be nice if constructors behaved as functions, then "return null" would be clear and clean. Something to think about.
Thank-you
Visualize then Realize
|
|
|
|
|
Giancarlo Trevisan wrote: It would be nice if constructors behaved as functions, then "return null" would be clear and clean. Something to think about.
No it wouldn't. The purpose of a constructor is to construct an object. If it was able to avoid doing that then the semantics of a constructor would be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we are talking about semantics and at this point about philosophy. I agree that a constructor should construct, and you probably agree that constructors have a behavior of their own in the sense that they are not functions yet return a handle to an instance: keep in mind that a NULL is also an instance.
My consideration is, why not allow constructors that allow ONLY, if necessary, "return null", the semantics would not be crippled yet acquire "selfawareness".
Visualize then Realize
|
|
|
|
|
Giancarlo Trevisan wrote: keep in mind that a NULL is also an instance
Ummm... No. A null is the absence of a instance.
Giancarlo Trevisan wrote: My consideration is, why not allow constructors that allow ONLY, if necessary, "return null", the semantics would not be crippled yet acquire "selfawareness".
Returning null from a constructor would cripple the semantics of a constructor. The purpose, and I feel I'm repeating myself here, of a constructor is to construct an object. To do anything otherwise would be to "cripple" the semantics of a constructor.
If you don't want it to actually construct an object there is an existing solution and that is to throw an exception. And in fact that isn't really a solution because the instance will already exist at the point the exception is thrown. It just means that, so long as the exception is thrown out of the constructor, nothing will ever reference the instance.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok 
Visualize then Realize
|
|
|
|
|
Giancarlo Trevisan wrote: My consideration is, why not allow constructors that allow ONLY, if necessary, "return null", the semantics would not be crippled yet acquire "selfawareness".
If you did allow the constructor to kill the object that is constructed, it would mean that you get an additional way of returning error status, that you have to handle everywhere.
The semantics would actually be crippled, as you could no longer trust that creating an object actually did create an object. You would have to check the reference after each object you create.
In practice this would mean that everyone would just write code to check the reference and throw an exception, to get the behaviour that we already have (but with less information about what caused the error):
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();<br />
if (sb == null) throw new ApplicationException("Object creation failed.");
The power of a programming language is not only what you can do, but also what you can't do.
---
b { font-weight: normal; }
|
|
|
|
|
I began the post with a postscriptum and the possibility to raise a System.Exception() (preceeded possibly by a Me.Dispose?): an ApplicationException would be more appropriate. I agree that raising an exception is the correct approach, who better than a class knows if the conditions are right to instantiate an object: I call this encapsulation.
Guffa wrote: In practice this would mean that everyone would just write code to check the reference and throw an exception, to get the behaviour that we already have (but with less information about what caused the error):
Let's go to an extreme, there is not enough memory to create an object, proper code would still require a reference check. In my view NOT ENOUGH MEMORY is a condition that does not allow object instantiation, I'm just generalizing. Give you an example, class MythicalFooCreature can't be instantiated if the temperature is below 32F, in my view the constructor should raise an exception and return a null reference.
Guffa wrote: The power of a programming language is not only what you can do, but also what you can't do.
Very profound, I add, evolution is applicable even to programming languages and is a consequence of trial and error or, better for humans, a questioning to gain deeper knowledge (my knowledge is probably superficial). I am alluding at a fundamental behavior that in my view would not be crippling but evidently this is not a general consensus.
Visualize then Realize
|
|
|
|
|
Giancarlo Trevisan wrote: I call this encapsulation.
Not accurate at all. Your "implementation" doesn't encapsulate anything. Your actually trying to give a class the option of not creating itself based on conditions OUTSIDE the class. So, you're not encapsulating anything, but are forcing a class to look outside of its own scope. It must know certain things about the environment its running in. That's quite the opposite of encapsulation.
A properly designed class shouldn't care about ANYTHING outside of its own scope. All it should need is proper parameters to construct itself. If it needed to look outside of itself, that would destroy its ability to be reused in non-similar situations.
The factory pattern in the best way to go to maintain that encapsulation. There's nothing that says you can't write multiple factories, each dealing with a specific set of requirements, to create the same class.
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-- modified at 8:38 Monday 24th July, 2006
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
