I want to know whether there is a way to perform an automatic file saving without any dialogs.
I know how to manage with the JvDBGridCSVExport-Object the exportings and savings from a JvDBUltimGrid, but like I said I want savings without any Dialogs so that I can perform these actions automatic without any clickings. How I can do this?
Set up a timer to call the export or save method when it fires.
You'll need to also set up a temporary filename that's valid so it doesn't raise an exception when it does do the save.
Related
I'm looking for a way to set custom a holding duration for my long-press gesture.
I've reviewed Windows.UI.Input.GestureRecognizer and there is no such option.
I was wondering is it possible at all?
I was wondering is it possible at all?
No, you cannot specify the duration of a holding action in your app.
From the docs:
The exact timing of what the system interprets as a holding action is adjustable by users through system settings.
I was reading about the .settings file on msdn and I noticed they give 2 examples of how to set the value of a item in the settings. Now my question is what is the real diffrence between the 2 and when would you use one instead of the other, since to me they seem pretty mutch the same.
To Write and Persist User Settings at Run Time
Access the user setting and assign it a new value, as shown in the following example:
Properties.Settings.Default.myColor = Color.AliceBlue;
If you want to persist changes to user settings between application sessions, call the Save method, as shown in the following code:
Properties.Settings.Default.Save();
The first statement updates the value of the setting in memory. The second statement updates the persisted value in the user.config file on the disk. That second statement is required to get the value back when you restart the program.
It is very, very important to realize that these two statements must be separate and never be written close together in your code. Keeping them close is harakiri-code. Settings tend to implement unsubtle features in your code, making it operate differently. Which isn't always perfectly tested. What you strongly want to avoid is persisting a setting value that subsequently crashes your program.
That's the harakiri angle, if you saved that value then it is highly likely that the program will immediately crash again when the user restarts it. Or in other words, your program will never run correctly again.
The Save() call must be made when you have a reasonable guarantee that nothing bad happened when the new setting value was used. It belongs at the end of your Main() method. Only reached when the program terminated normally.
When I try to switch to edit mode for a Report source, a popup comes up telling me
"A new task will be created for the following request of user XXX".
A transport request is also being suggested.
I don't want to save my changes in this request however, but in another existing one. I am not aware of any versioning systems being implemented in my system, and don't know how to check that.
Is what i'm trying to achieve possible? And if so, how?
No, this is not possible. There are very good reasons for this being an exclusive lock -- reasons that you should know about before you attempt to change anything. Briefly speaking
The CTS only notes that an object was touched, not what change was made.
When the transport is released, the entire object in its current state is exported - there is no delta/diff logic involved.
Therefore you can't separately transport changes to the same development object. Furthermore, if you serialize this manually, the second transport will always comprise the changes of the first one.
Things get slightly more complicated with partial objects - you can have LIMU METH objects (methods of a class) in different transports, but as soon as you try to lock the R3TR CLAS main class, you'll have to resolve that.
I have a WPF application that uses entity framework. I am going to be implementing a repository pattern to make interactions with EF simple and more testable. Multiple clients can use this application and connect to the same database and do CRUD operations. I am trying to think of a way to synchronize clients repositories when one makes a change to the database. Could anyone give me some direction on how one would solve this type of issue, and some possible patterns that would be beneficial for this type of problem?
I would be very open to any information/books on how to keep clients synchronized, and even be alerted of things other clients are doing(The only thing I could think of was having a server process running that passes messages around). Thank you
The easiest way by far to keep every client UI up to date is just to simply refresh the data every so often. If it's really that important, you can set a DispatcherTimer to tick every minute when you can get the latest data that is being displayed.
Clearly, I'm not suggesting that you refresh an item that is being edited, but if you get the fresh data, you can certainly compare collections with what's being displayed currently. Rather than just replacing the old collection items with the new, you can be more user friendly and just add the new ones, remove the deleted ones and update the newer ones.
You could even detect whether an item being currently edited has been saved by another user since the current user opened it and alert them to the fact. So rather than concentrating on some system to track all data changes, you should put your effort into being able to detect changes between two sets of data and then seamlessly integrating it into the current UI state.
UPDATE >>>
There is absolutely no benefit from holding a complete set of data in your application (or repository). In fact, you may well find that it adds detrimental effects, due to the extra RAM requirements. If you are polling data every few minutes, then it will always be up to date anyway.
So rather than asking for all of the data all of the time, just ask for what the user wants to see (dependant on which view they are currently in) and update it every now and then. I do this by simply fetching the same data that the view requires when it is first opened. I wrote some methods that compare every property of every item with their older counterparts in the UI and switch old for new.
Think of the Equals method... You could do something like this:
public override bool Equals(Release otherRelease)
{
return base.Equals(otherRelease) && Title == otherRelease.Title &&
Artist.Equals(otherRelease.Artist) && Artists.Equals(otherRelease.Artists);
}
(Don't actually use the Equals method though, or you'll run into problems later). And then something like this:
if (!oldRelease.Equals(newRelease)) oldRelease.UpdatePropertyValues(newRelease);
And/Or this:
if (!oldReleases.Contains(newRelease) oldReleases.Add(newRelease);
I'm guessing that you get the picture now.
I have a very basic query. I am using WPF Binding to edit a object which is loaded by a ISession. If somebody edits this object in the form, because of two way binding and a stateful session, whenever I close the session, changes to the object made in the form are stored back in the database. Which is the best way to avoid this?
The methods I know:
Shadow copy the object and use the copied object as the DataContext (the method I am using as of now).
ISession.Clear
Use IStatelessSession.
Is there any way to reset the object to it's original form before closing the ISession?
If you look here: http://nhforge.org/wikis/howtonh/finding-dirty-properties-in-nhibernate.aspx
It is an example of finding dirty properties. NHibernate internally tracks a persistent object's state by way of the EntityEntry object.
This is useful for you, because with a little modification to the method above, you're able to get old values back ... which you can use to reset the properties.
As for closing your session causing the object to be flushed to the database, you can set the session FlushMode to FlushMode.Never. This will mean no database sync occurs until you call Session.Flush().
Alternatively, you can hook into IFlushEntityEventListener to reset the object state. There are a reasonable examples of using the NHibernate event system on google.
See Managing the caches on NHibernate Forge:
When Flush() is subsequently called, the state of that object will be synchronized with the database. If you do not want this synchronization to occur or if you are processing a huge number of objects and need to manage memory efficiently, the Evict() method may be used to remove the object and its collections from the first-level cache.
I think that sounds like what you want.
I would suggest the use of transactions. You just rollbackthe transaction if that is the case? what do you think?