Hi,
I have an asp.net application which runs from a CD-ROM using Cassini. As
such, it is single user only.
The application connects to an Access database when it is loaded, and
keeps the same connection open all the time (as it's single user, this
shouldn't be a problem).
There is logic in the code to ensure that the connection is
automatically opened the first time it is used and the connection is
stored in an Application variable:
if ((cmd.Connectio n.State == ConnectionState .Closed) ||
(cmd.Connection .State == ConnectionState .Broken)) cmd.Connection. Open();
However occasionally while testing my application under IIS, it comes up
with this error message:
System.InvalidO perationExcepti on:
The connection is already Open (state=Connecti ng).
Or this:
ExecuteReader requires an open and available Connection. The
connection's current state is Open, Executing.
But if the state is Connecting, you can neither call .Open nor can you
execute a query. So how can I maintain an open connection without these
errors occuring?
I don't understand why it is ever in the "Exectuting "
state in a single user application. Is it because IIS is multithreaded
and perhaps it's using two+ threads to host my application?
If so, how can I stop these errors from happening? I don't want to open
and close a new connection each time I do something because this is too
slow (40ms) and some pages require 100 queries for reasons I don't have
time to explain here. Using a single connection - the application
performs very well but has these errors. Is there a way I can get the
best of both worlds?
Someone suggested that I disable connection pooling but this made no
difference.
Thanks,
Nick...
--
Please reply to the newsgroup or I won't see your message.
14  4822 
Hi Nick,
I understand that you may think it is better to use a single Connection, but
you're really trying to make an end-run around the .Net database Connection
model. The .Net platform is designed to make efficient use of database
Connections, and to reuse them all by itself. it does this by the process of
Connection Pooling.
You may be confusing the Connection Class and a database Connection. In
fact, they are not the same. A Connection class is a class that provides a
programming interface for working with database Connections. A database
Connection is a software entity that contains data about the daabase
Connection (that is, the client app and the database), and process for
communicating between the client app and the database. This is an important
distinction to make. Why? Because in the .Net platform, closing a Connection
doesn't actuall kill a database Connection. It disconnects the Connection
class from the database Connection itself, which is held in a Connection
Pool for re-use by any Connection class that has the same Connection String.
In other words, by persisting your Connection (class), you're not
accomplishing anything that the .Net platform doesn't do all by itself
already, which is to persist actual database Connections. And, in fact, you
are, as I said earlier, making an expensive end-run around the .Net database
Connection model, which is more likely to cause problems than it is to solve
any (as you have seen).
Therefore, I would recommend that you take Microsoft's word for how the .Net
platform works, and use it as prescribed by Microsoft. That is, create your
Connection classes when and where you need them, and close and/or dispose
them as quickly as possible, in order to avoid the sorts of problems you're
experiencing right now.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Ambiguity has a certain quality to it.
"Nick Gilbert" <Ni***@newsgrou p.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@tk2msf tngp13.phx.gbl. .. Hi,
I have an asp.net application which runs from a CD-ROM using Cassini. As
such, it is single user only.
The application connects to an Access database when it is loaded, and
keeps the same connection open all the time (as it's single user, this
shouldn't be a problem).
There is logic in the code to ensure that the connection is
automatically opened the first time it is used and the connection is
stored in an Application variable:
if ((cmd.Connectio n.State == ConnectionState .Closed) ||
(cmd.Connection .State == ConnectionState .Broken)) cmd.Connection. Open();
However occasionally while testing my application under IIS, it comes up
with this error message:
System.InvalidO perationExcepti on:
The connection is already Open (state=Connecti ng).
Or this:
ExecuteReader requires an open and available Connection. The
connection's current state is Open, Executing.
But if the state is Connecting, you can neither call .Open nor can you
execute a query. So how can I maintain an open connection without these
errors occuring?
I don't understand why it is ever in the "Exectuting "
state in a single user application. Is it because IIS is multithreaded
and perhaps it's using two+ threads to host my application?
If so, how can I stop these errors from happening? I don't want to open
and close a new connection each time I do something because this is too
slow (40ms) and some pages require 100 queries for reasons I don't have
time to explain here. Using a single connection - the application
performs very well but has these errors. Is there a way I can get the
best of both worlds?
Someone suggested that I disable connection pooling but this made no
difference.
Thanks,
Nick...
--
Please reply to the newsgroup or I won't see your message.
> In other words, by persisting your Connection (class), you're not accomplishing anything that the .Net platform doesn't do all by itself
already, which is to persist actual database Connections.
If this is the case, why do I get a 5000% performance improvement if I
cache my connection class? Why also does calling .Open take about 30ms
to execute each time you call it if it's not really having to open the
database connection again?
If you don't belive me - try it yourself. Calling Connection.Open about
2000 times on SQL Server takes almost no time. On Access it takes
several seconds. Perhaps you're assuming .NET handles Access connections
in the same way it handles SQL Server connections?
Calling .Open every time I call a query makes some of my pages unusably
slow - whereas currently they render in a fraction of a second. I could
either rewrite the page so it uses fewer queries (not very feasable for
my project) or try and fix this bug another way.
Nick...
Not using Access myself but according to http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...taprovider.asp
and other sources, my understanding is that pooling should work as this is
handled by the provider.
What is the format of the Jet DB ? (Access 97, 2000, 2003 level ?) Do you
see the same slowness on a read/write device ?
I'll likely give this a try. Just curious to know if pooling works or not
with Jet... For example an interesting test would be to try to disable
pooling. If it's the same this is that pooling doesn't work. If it's slower,
this is because the original slow result comes from something else than
pooling (permissions checking or whatever else)...
--
Patrice
"Nick Gilbert" <Ni***@newsgrou p.nospam> a écrit dans le message de
news:eq******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl... In other words, by persisting your Connection (class), you're not
accomplishing anything that the .Net platform doesn't do all by itself
already, which is to persist actual database Connections.
If this is the case, why do I get a 5000% performance improvement if I
cache my connection class? Why also does calling .Open take about 30ms
to execute each time you call it if it's not really having to open the
database connection again?
If you don't belive me - try it yourself. Calling Connection.Open about
2000 times on SQL Server takes almost no time. On Access it takes
several seconds. Perhaps you're assuming .NET handles Access connections
in the same way it handles SQL Server connections?
Calling .Open every time I call a query makes some of my pages unusably
slow - whereas currently they render in a fraction of a second. I could
either rewrite the page so it uses fewer queries (not very feasable for
my project) or try and fix this bug another way.
Nick...
Ok it looks actually that the problem is that pooling is not enabled by
default for Jet (or perhaps depending on the OS or whatever ???)
What I saw here :
- with a basic connection string, creating/closing 100 connections took
around 4 s.
- surprisingly it made no difference when disabling pooling.
- I tested then to see what happens when explictely enabling pooling and it
gave a much better 0,1 s result
For now, it looks like to me that pooling is actually disabled by default
(at least on a workstation OS ???).
You could then try to see what it gives if you don't cache the connection
and enable pooling (by adding "OLE DB Services=-1" in the connection
string).
Let us know what you find...
--
Patrice
"Patrice" <no****@nowhere .com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Oa******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl... Not using Access myself but according to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...taprovider.asp and other sources, my understanding is that pooling should work as this is
handled by the provider.
What is the format of the Jet DB ? (Access 97, 2000, 2003 level ?) Do you
see the same slowness on a read/write device ?
I'll likely give this a try. Just curious to know if pooling works or not
with Jet... For example an interesting test would be to try to disable
pooling. If it's the same this is that pooling doesn't work. If it's
slower, this is because the original slow result comes from something else than
pooling (permissions checking or whatever else)...
--
Patrice
"Nick Gilbert" <Ni***@newsgrou p.nospam> a écrit dans le message de
news:eq******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl... In other words, by persisting your Connection (class), you're not
accomplishing anything that the .Net platform doesn't do all by itself
already, which is to persist actual database Connections.
If this is the case, why do I get a 5000% performance improvement if I
cache my connection class? Why also does calling .Open take about 30ms
to execute each time you call it if it's not really having to open the
database connection again?
If you don't belive me - try it yourself. Calling Connection.Open about
2000 times on SQL Server takes almost no time. On Access it takes
several seconds. Perhaps you're assuming .NET handles Access connections
in the same way it handles SQL Server connections?
Calling .Open every time I call a query makes some of my pages unusably
slow - whereas currently they render in a fraction of a second. I could
either rewrite the page so it uses fewer queries (not very feasable for
my project) or try and fix this bug another way.
Nick...
Patrice wrote: Ok it looks actually that the problem is that pooling is not enabled by
default for Jet (or perhaps depending on the OS or whatever ???)
What I saw here :
- with a basic connection string, creating/closing 100 connections took
around 4 s.
- surprisingly it made no difference when disabling pooling.
- I tested then to see what happens when explictely enabling pooling and it
gave a much better 0,1 s result
For now, it looks like to me that pooling is actually disabled by default
(at least on a workstation OS ???).
You could then try to see what it gives if you don't cache the connection
and enable pooling (by adding "OLE DB Services=-1" in the connection
string).
Let us know what you find...
You're right.
The reason it was so slow was that connection pooling seems to be
disabled by default. Adding "OLE DB Services=-1" to my connection string
has speeded up the appliction by an order of magnitude (no wonder
disabling it didn't make any difference!). So I've removed all my
connection caching code and now the bug has gone as as well! Thanks
Patrice! An average page in my application now loads in 0.10s instead of
0.90s and my slow loading 4 second pages load in less than 0.5s. I can't
complain about a 10 fold performance improvement just by adding
something to a connection string.
The only thing that worries me is *WHY* is it disabled by default if it
provides so much performance improvement? It seems to be working for me,
but what if it's disabled by default because there are issues with it?
Oh well - I'll just have to see if any arise.
Nick...
My first though would be it depends on the OS (connection pooling would make
more sense on an server OS rather than a workstation OS).
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/pooling2.asp
and though this is not directly related (ODBC) :
Enabling Connection Pooling
For Internet Information Services (IIS) version 3.0, pooling is set to off
by default, so you need to manually turn on connection pooling. For IIS
version 4.0 and later, pooling has been set to on by default. (IIS 3.0 uses
ODBC 3.0, and IIS 4.0 uses ODBC 3.5.) If you are coding by using the ActiveX
Data Objects (ADO) object model to the OLE DB Provider for ODBC (MSDASQL),
connection pooling will be turned on for you. If you are not using ADO and
are coding directly to the ODBC API, you will need to turn on pooling
yourself.
Though not directly related, it would me make think from a general point of
view that it is better to explicitely ask for the behavior you depend on
rather than to rely on some kind of default (that could vary in time)...
--
Patrice
"Nick Gilbert" <Ni***@newsgrou p.nospam> a écrit dans le message de
news:Os******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP14.phx.gbl. .. Patrice wrote: Ok it looks actually that the problem is that pooling is not enabled by
default for Jet (or perhaps depending on the OS or whatever ???)
What I saw here :
- with a basic connection string, creating/closing 100 connections took
around 4 s.
- surprisingly it made no difference when disabling pooling.
- I tested then to see what happens when explictely enabling pooling and
it gave a much better 0,1 s result
For now, it looks like to me that pooling is actually disabled by
default (at least on a workstation OS ???).
You could then try to see what it gives if you don't cache the
connection and enable pooling (by adding "OLE DB Services=-1" in the connection
string).
Let us know what you find...
You're right.
The reason it was so slow was that connection pooling seems to be
disabled by default. Adding "OLE DB Services=-1" to my connection string
has speeded up the appliction by an order of magnitude (no wonder
disabling it didn't make any difference!). So I've removed all my
connection caching code and now the bug has gone as as well! Thanks
Patrice! An average page in my application now loads in 0.10s instead of
0.90s and my slow loading 4 second pages load in less than 0.5s. I can't
complain about a 10 fold performance improvement just by adding
something to a connection string.
The only thing that worries me is *WHY* is it disabled by default if it
provides so much performance improvement? It seems to be working for me,
but what if it's disabled by default because there are issues with it?
Oh well - I'll just have to see if any arise.
Nick...
Patrice,
For anyone around here who survived the Window NT days, you would have
experienced the joy of debugging connection pooling problems (which of
course, was enabled by default, back then). On multiple CPU's, under
moderate stress, it worked horribly. Thanks to our brave efforts,
Microsoft, in their wisdom, now disables it by default and it is a far more
stable and predictable sub-system. MDAC 2.61 on Windows 2000 was the first
release where it actually worked predictably and correctly.
That's a battle I won't soon forget ... as I write this from my padded room
;-)
Ad.
"Patrice" <no****@nowhere .com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP15.phx.gbl. .. My first though would be it depends on the OS (connection pooling would
make
more sense on an server OS rather than a workstation OS).
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/pooling2.asp
and though this is not directly related (ODBC) :
Enabling Connection Pooling
For Internet Information Services (IIS) version 3.0, pooling is set to off
by default, so you need to manually turn on connection pooling. For IIS
version 4.0 and later, pooling has been set to on by default. (IIS 3.0
uses
ODBC 3.0, and IIS 4.0 uses ODBC 3.5.) If you are coding by using the
ActiveX
Data Objects (ADO) object model to the OLE DB Provider for ODBC (MSDASQL),
connection pooling will be turned on for you. If you are not using ADO and
are coding directly to the ODBC API, you will need to turn on pooling
yourself.
Though not directly related, it would me make think from a general point
of
view that it is better to explicitely ask for the behavior you depend on
rather than to rely on some kind of default (that could vary in time)...
--
Patrice
"Nick Gilbert" <Ni***@newsgrou p.nospam> a écrit dans le message de
news:Os******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP14.phx.gbl. .. Patrice wrote: > Ok it looks actually that the problem is that pooling is not enabled by
> default for Jet (or perhaps depending on the OS or whatever ???)
>
> What I saw here :
> - with a basic connection string, creating/closing 100 connections took
> around 4 s.
> - surprisingly it made no difference when disabling pooling.
> - I tested then to see what happens when explictely enabling pooling
> and it > gave a much better 0,1 s result
>
> For now, it looks like to me that pooling is actually disabled by default > (at least on a workstation OS ???).
>
> You could then try to see what it gives if you don't cache the connection > and enable pooling (by adding "OLE DB Services=-1" in the connection
> string).
>
> Let us know what you find...
You're right.
The reason it was so slow was that connection pooling seems to be
disabled by default. Adding "OLE DB Services=-1" to my connection string
has speeded up the appliction by an order of magnitude (no wonder
disabling it didn't make any difference!). So I've removed all my
connection caching code and now the bug has gone as as well! Thanks
Patrice! An average page in my application now loads in 0.10s instead of
0.90s and my slow loading 4 second pages load in less than 0.5s. I can't
complain about a 10 fold performance improvement just by adding
something to a connection string.
The only thing that worries me is *WHY* is it disabled by default if it
provides so much performance improvement? It seems to be working for me,
but what if it's disabled by default because there are issues with it?
Oh well - I'll just have to see if any arise.
Nick...
I promise. I won't ask Microsoft to enable this by default dismissing your
past efforts ;-)
Actually they done the same thing with Windows Server 2003 (disabling all by
default). Got the big picture now ;-)
Patrice
--
"Adrian Moore" <qu***********@ hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. .. Patrice,
For anyone around here who survived the Window NT days, you would have
experienced the joy of debugging connection pooling problems (which of
course, was enabled by default, back then). On multiple CPU's, under
moderate stress, it worked horribly. Thanks to our brave efforts,
Microsoft, in their wisdom, now disables it by default and it is a far
more stable and predictable sub-system. MDAC 2.61 on Windows 2000 was the
first release where it actually worked predictably and correctly.
That's a battle I won't soon forget ... as I write this from my padded
room ;-)
Ad.
"Patrice" <no****@nowhere .com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP15.phx.gbl. .. My first though would be it depends on the OS (connection pooling would
make
more sense on an server OS rather than a workstation OS).
From
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l/pooling2.asp and though this is not directly related (ODBC) :
Enabling Connection Pooling
For Internet Information Services (IIS) version 3.0, pooling is set to
off by default, so you need to manually turn on connection pooling. For IIS
version 4.0 and later, pooling has been set to on by default. (IIS 3.0
uses
ODBC 3.0, and IIS 4.0 uses ODBC 3.5.) If you are coding by using the
ActiveX
Data Objects (ADO) object model to the OLE DB Provider for ODBC
(MSDASQL), connection pooling will be turned on for you. If you are not using ADO
and are coding directly to the ODBC API, you will need to turn on pooling
yourself.
Though not directly related, it would me make think from a general point
of
view that it is better to explicitely ask for the behavior you depend on
rather than to rely on some kind of default (that could vary in time)...
--
Patrice
"Nick Gilbert" <Ni***@newsgrou p.nospam> a écrit dans le message de
news:Os******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP14.phx.gbl. .. Patrice wrote:
> Ok it looks actually that the problem is that pooling is not enabled
by > default for Jet (or perhaps depending on the OS or whatever ???)
>
> What I saw here :
> - with a basic connection string, creating/closing 100 connections
took > around 4 s.
> - surprisingly it made no difference when disabling pooling.
> - I tested then to see what happens when explictely enabling pooling
> and
it > gave a much better 0,1 s result
>
> For now, it looks like to me that pooling is actually disabled by
default > (at least on a workstation OS ???).
>
> You could then try to see what it gives if you don't cache the
connection > and enable pooling (by adding "OLE DB Services=-1" in the connection
> string).
>
> Let us know what you find...
You're right.
The reason it was so slow was that connection pooling seems to be
disabled by default. Adding "OLE DB Services=-1" to my connection
string has speeded up the appliction by an order of magnitude (no wonder
disabling it didn't make any difference!). So I've removed all my
connection caching code and now the bug has gone as as well! Thanks
Patrice! An average page in my application now loads in 0.10s instead
of 0.90s and my slow loading 4 second pages load in less than 0.5s. I
can't complain about a 10 fold performance improvement just by adding
something to a connection string.
The only thing that worries me is *WHY* is it disabled by default if it
provides so much performance improvement? It seems to be working for
me, but what if it's disabled by default because there are issues with it?
Oh well - I'll just have to see if any arise.
Nick...
>> You could then try to see what it gives if you don't cache the connection and enable pooling (by adding "OLE DB Services=-1" in the connection
string).
Let us know what you find...
You're right.
The reason it was so slow was that connection pooling seems to be
disabled by default. Adding "OLE DB Services=-1" to my connection string
has speeded up the appliction by an order of magnitude (no wonder
disabling it didn't make any difference!). So I've removed all my
connection caching code and now the bug has gone as as well! Thanks
Patrice! An average page in my application now loads in 0.10s instead of
0.90s and my slow loading 4 second pages load in less than 0.5s. I can't
complain about a 10 fold performance improvement just by adding
something to a connection string.
The only thing that worries me is *WHY* is it disabled by default if it
provides so much performance improvement? It seems to be working for me,
but what if it's disabled by default because there are issues with it?
Oh well - I'll just have to see if any arise.
Follow-up: Connection pooling does not seem to work reliably in Access
and I have had to turn it off.
For example, I had some code that updated a value in a database and then
immediately requested a dataset which contained that value. Sometimes I
noticed that the new dataset still contained an OLD value, even though
the database shows the correct value. Ie Jet was sending back an out of
date value for the data.
Similarly when updating, I occasionally get the following exception:
"The Microsoft Jet database engine stopped the process because you and
another user are attempting to change the same data at the same time. ".
This is in a single threaded application with only one user.
I'm coming to the conclusion that connection pooling in access doesn't
work or is horribly bugged. The odd thing is, I can only reproduce this
error easily on one machine. On my machine it seems fine - but it may
just be because it's a faster machine or perhaps my machine has newer
drivers that have fixed this problem. How can I find out which version
of the OleDb drivers each machine is using?
The big problem I now have, is that without connection pooling, my
application is really slow! GRRR.
Thanks,
Nick... This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: MAB71 |
last post by:
There should be a way to copy an access database ( .mdb file ) without
closing connections to it. Unfortunately the FileCopy statement in VB gives
an error if users are connected to the db. But I can copy the file using
windows explorer so there must be a way. WinAPI function or something?
I'm using VB6 and Access 2000
|
by: premmehrotra |
last post by:
I currently have a multi-user access database which is put on a shared
drive L: on a Windows Servers. Entire database is one file premdb.mdb.
Users access this database from their laptops. Following problems
occur:
1. Access is way too slow in WAN environment. Server is located in New
Jersey and users are in California and Puerto Rico.
2. Database often becomes corrupt
3. When one user updates some data in the database, other users...
|
by: XFER |
last post by:
Does anyone know how well 10 concurrent users will
perform on the above config? Are there any known issues,
limits to using MS Access with IIS 5 and ASP.net on a non-
..net server (NT)?
thanks.
|
by: Nathan Sokalski |
last post by:
I am trying to connect to a Microsoft Access Database from my ASP.NET
Application. I use the following code to create my connection string:
cmdSelect.Connection = New
System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection("PROVIDER=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;DATASOURCE="
& Server.MapPath("/WebApplication1/nathansokalski_com.mdb"))
Although the error does not occur until the Fill() method is called:
|
by: Seok Bee |
last post by:
Dear Experts,
I currently trying to use the FileUpload control from asp.net 2.0 to upload
files. The uploading of the file I would like to store it in the Access
Database. Unfortunately, I've no idea how I can do that. Can anyone provide
me some solution by writing the code in vb.net?
Many thanks in advance.
Regards,
| | |
by: shineofleo |
last post by:
Here is the situation: I wrote a VB programm, which stores all the
information in a single Access database file using jet engine. It
worked well, however one of my customs reported that there was some
problems with this programm. I checked, the log files showed that the
database was corrupted.
The customer told me that there no 'illegal' operation such as pull out
the plug, or kill the programm via task manager...
So is there any...
|
by: Rameel |
last post by:
Friends,
I'm probably being more critical with VB.Net Windows application.
I have Developed VisualStudio 20005 VB.Net Windows application
how willl i be able to save a specific record into my database file throu GUI Save Record button?
As i write the comand as foloow but it is not inserting the new record in to the Access Database.
Public Function Open_Connection() As Boolean
Try
Select Case...
|
by: John |
last post by:
I have an ASP.NET 2.0 application developed in VB.net, that accesses an
Microsoft Access
database. When the database is on the same IIS server all works just
fine. BUT when it tried to access the same database on a different
server I get a permission error. I've created a shared drive on the
other server and give it permission with all rights, as well as the
Access database. BUT no matter how I set up the connection string in my
app, I...
|
by: SL Culby |
last post by:
Hello everyone, I have a project where I pull SQL Server data put it into a dataset and now I have to put the dataset data into an Access Database. The dataset currently is over 2000 row, so looping through and inserting one row at a time is very expensive. Does anyone know a fast way with low overhead to accomplish this task. I have been working in this direction (code below) however the code inserts 0 rows into the access database.
...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
| | |
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| | |
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
