|
I can't help thinking about a quote from Uncle Bob (Robert C. Martin at ObjectMentor):
When a customer comes up to you with his cell phone and says:
"I need a bigger antenna!"
You should think
"He needs better reception on his cell phone"
and not
"He wants the mother of all cell phone antennas, 'cause it is 15 inches long"
You should always ask yourself, "Why do they want that?", try putting yourself in your customer's shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you really need to review your design.
It's not possible for a human to view that much information all at once, even less to do some sort of analysis on it.
We will need to find better ways to present the results to the users.
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you try using 25,000 DataGrids with one column each?
Phil
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the author, especially if you find them impolite, inaccurate or inflammatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
aloktambi wrote: 25000 columns
 Don't think that is really possible.
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
Pfft DataGrids cause a localized lowering of the ambient air pressure; I avoid them at all cost. 
|
|
|
|
|
You need to design a custom control, which meets the criteria of you're data you are trying to present. A grid with 25000 columns isn't the way to go, you need a customized grid and when the user scrolls left/right load the columns on demand, it's easy with .net and even easier with WPF. A good software design engineer (cough, cough) such as my self would be able to create such a control (obviously your company would be billed).
WPF - Imagineers Wanted
Follow your nose using DoubleAnimationUsingPath
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing that can possibly handle that amount of columns is Excel 2007 where the column limit has been increased. I think this is your best bet too, in terms of rendering to screen compared to DataGrid.
-- modified at 18:41 Saturday 13th October, 2007
xacc.ide
The rule of three: "The first time you notice something that might repeat, don't generalize it. The second time the situation occurs, develop in a similar fashion -- possibly even copy/paste -- but don't generalize yet. On the third time, look to generalize the approach."
|
|
|
|
|
May I suggest the following?
1. Have a small fixed number of columns on your screen, say 10.
2. Add two honrizontal arrows on the screen that when clicked would show users the next/previous 10 columns.
|
|
|
|
|
And to get to the middle of the grid, you want the user to click the right arrow button, what, 1,250 times??
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a fast forward/backward button would help?
|
|
|
|
|
Even at moving 1,000 columns at a time, that's still 12.5 clicks to see the middle of the table.
No matter how you bandaid this, it's still a horrible "solution".
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No matter how you bandaid this, it's still a horrible "solution".
As I recall, the original problem is that the initial poster can't create that many columns in a grid. My "solution" avoids the difficulty of creating that many columns, it is not intended to answer the question of how the hell the users are going to use the application. 
I agree with you that it is a bad design in the first place (that the app needs to create so many columns in a grid).
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Even at moving 1,000 columns at a time, that's still 12.5 clicks to see the middle of the table.
No matter how you bandaid this, it's still a horrible "solution".
Not that I advocate continuing on a design path doomed to fail, but you could always have "Jump To" button which would work just fine, maybe even acceptable to a given client assuming it was the same client that came up with 25,000 columns requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you need to re-design your application. Twenty five THOUSAND columns? I'm almost afraid to ask how many rows you anticipate having...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to use a virtual table, i.e. only generate the rows and columns that are currently visible on screen.
When the user scrolls this huge table, simply get the values of the visible cells and the visible row/column headers, and display them.
|
|
|
|
|
public static SqlParameter Parameter<t>(string parameterName, DbType parameterType, T value, ParameterDirection direction)
{}
public void SqlParameter Parameter(string parameterName, DbType parameterType, string value, ParameterDirection direction)
{}
Please explain.....
Soniagupta1@yahoo.co.in
Yahoo Messenger Id = soniagupta1
|
|
|
|
|
Sonia - if this is in reply to your other question, please ask this on that thread. It's not good practice to do this. Anyway - to answer your question:
The first Parameter is missing the <T> attribute which marks it out as a generic method. The second Parameter won't actually work because you have void and SqlParameter in the definition. However, if you are talking about the string value portion, the difference is that if you pass in an integer (for instance), you would have to cast this parameter from an integer to a string.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
How To Control Forward and Back Buttons for internet explorer. I wnat when click the back button the appear a message and when click forword button the appear message. in asp.net.
This is possible. then please help me anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
Gagan Deep Garg wrote: How To Control Forward and Back Buttons for internet explorer. I wnat when click the back button the appear a message and when click forword button the appear message. in asp.net.
Will you please not do this. You asked this question 4 hours ago. Please have the courtesy to reply to that. Don't try to artificially make your post appear more important than it is.
Secondly - exactly which part of this requirement has anything to do with C#? Try as I might I just can't see it. Choose the right forum at least.
Gagan Deep Garg wrote: This is possible.
Is it? How do you know? If you know that it's possible then surely you have some idea how to do it and merely need to fill in a couple of details in google.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Try replying to my message here. But before you press "Post Message" try hitting back. You will be presented with a dialog telling you that you will lose your changes. Now, if you view the source of the "Reply to a Message" page, you will find what you need. Search for "You will lose any unsaved text".
Take care,
Tom
-----------------------------------------------
Check out my blog at http://tjoe.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
I am using a Temprory table. inside a two columns
DataTable item = new DataTable("tblitems");
item.Columns.Add(new DataColumn("Item No", Type.GetType("System.String")));
item.Columns.Add(new DataColumn("Date of Manu.",Type.GetType("System.String")));
table store in view state
ViewState["ab"] = item;
how store a this table in database. sql server Database are inside Two columns(Itemno, DateofMancu)
cmd.parameters.add("@parametersname",sqldbtype. ).value = parametervalue
how pick a value particular column in view state.
parametersname = "@itemno"
parametersvalue= ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I use the wsdl tool to create a web service proxy, it always makes the call back delegate a module level object variable, it then puts the code in as follows:
private SendOrPostCallback _cb;<br />
<br />
public void GetProductsAsync(ProductsRequestEntity request, object userState)<br />
{<br />
if (_cb == null)<br />
_cb = new SendOrPostCallback(OnGetProductsCompleted);<br />
<br />
this.Invoke("GetProducts", new object[] { request}, _cb, userState);<br />
}<br />
Does the callback delegate need to be a module level variable, will coding it the following way cause me any problems:
<br />
public void GetProductsAsync(ProductsRequestEntity request, object userState)<br />
{<br />
this.Invoke("GetProducts", new object[] { request}, new SendOrPostCallback(OnGetProductsCompleted), userState);<br />
}<br />
I have a lot of proxies to create and tidy up, taking a few shortcuts will save me a lot of time.
Thanks in advance,
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Sirs.. I Have tried creating a program on the simulation of the Dining Philosophers.. I need help on creating it..
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
