Hello,
I have installed the 2.0 framework, and am looking at converting some of
my 1.1 pages to use partial classes. I don't (yet) have VS2005, so I'm
doing this by hand, but am having problems.
I have a simple page that I made in the beta2 version of VWD. The code
behind looks like...
using System;
using System.Web.UI;
public partial class _Default : Page {
protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) {
// do stuff here
}
}
From this, I assumed that all I needed to do to my existing code-behind
files was to change the class definition to be partial, and remove the
large list of lines like...
protected Literal litTest;
// etc
from the class definition. I did this, but the compiler complained that
litTest did not exist in the current context. If I put back the above
line, it worked.
The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't have the lines in
declaring each control in the code-behind, and it worked fine. What do I
need to do to get my file to work like that? I looked in the folder
where the files live, and couldn't see any other file relating to this
page. I seem to remember that 2.0 uses a third file, which contains
extra info. Is that what I'm missing? I couldn't see one for the page
VWD created, and I could move this page to another site and it worked
fine.
Thanks for any help.
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) 7 1739
Anyone have an answer for this? Surely it must be a very common
question. Am I the only person trying to convert 1.1 pages to work with
2.0? Hello,
I have installed the 2.0 framework, and am looking at converting some of my 1.1 pages to use partial classes. I don't (yet) have VS2005, so I'm doing this by hand, but am having problems.
I have a simple page that I made in the beta2 version of VWD. The code behind looks like...
using System; using System.Web.UI;
public partial class _Default : Page { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here } }
From this, I assumed that all I needed to do to my existing code-behind files was to change the class definition to be partial, and remove the large list of lines like...
protected Literal litTest; // etc
from the class definition. I did this, but the compiler complained that litTest did not exist in the current context. If I put back the above line, it worked.
The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't have the lines in declaring each control in the code-behind, and it worked fine. What do I need to do to get my file to work like that? I looked in the folder where the files live, and couldn't see any other file relating to this page. I seem to remember that 2.0 uses a third file, which contains extra info. Is that what I'm missing? I couldn't see one for the page VWD created, and I could move this page to another site and it worked fine.
Thanks for any help.
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Try :
using System;
using System.Web.UI;
// etc...
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.P age
{
protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e)
{
// do stuff here
}
}
re:
protected Literal litTest;
// etc
That *is* needed...
See : http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/be...ta2update.aspx
and http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...uesasp_net.asp
and http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...e/default.aspx
for other critical changes going from 1.1 to 2.0
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== ========
"Alan Silver" <al*********@no spam.thanx> wrote in message
news:mE******** ******@nospamth ankyou.spam... Anyone have an answer for this? Surely it must be a very common question. Am I the only person trying to convert 1.1 pages to work with 2.0?
Hello,
I have installed the 2.0 framework, and am looking at converting some of my 1.1 pages to use partial classes. I don't (yet) have VS2005, so I'm doing this by hand, but am having problems.
I have a simple page that I made in the beta2 version of VWD. The code behind looks like...
using System; using System.Web.UI;
public partial class _Default : Page { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here } }
From this, I assumed that all I needed to do to my existing code-behind files was to change the class definition to be partial, and remove the large list of lines like...
protected Literal litTest; // etc
from the class definition. I did this, but the compiler complained that litTest did not exist in the current context. If I put back the above line, it worked.
The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't have the lines in declaring each control in the code-behind, and it worked fine. What do I need to do to get my file to work like that? I looked in the folder where the files live, and couldn't see any other file relating to this page. I seem to remember that 2.0 uses a third file, which contains extra info. Is that what I'm missing? I couldn't see one for the page VWD created, and I could move this page to another site and it worked fine.
Thanks for any help.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Juan,
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not clear!!
As far as the first bit of your post... Try :
using System; using System.Web.UI; // etc...
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.P age { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here }
}
I'm not sure what you're gaining by adding System.Web.UI.P age instead of
just Page, as the System.Web.UI namespace is already referenced at the
top of the file. Why would this make any difference?
More to the point however...
re: protected Literal litTest; // etc
That *is* needed...
Well, if you reread my original post, you will see that it seems it
isn't!! VWD created an .aspx and a code-behind for me, and the
"protected Literal litTest;" lines were *not* included. I copied these
two files to another web server entirely, one that has never seen VWD,
and the page ran fine.
Also...
See :
<snip links>for other critical changes going from 1.1 to 2.0
I've seen most of that before, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.
Whilst looking through those links, I came across http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...de/default.asp
x?pull=/library/en-us/dnvs05/html/migratefromaspn etto2.asp, which shows
(just below figure 3) a new code-behind file, that does *not* have the
"protected. .." lines in it.
Moreover, the text below the sample code explicitly states...
"The code-behind file has automatic access to any controls added to the
ASP.NET page"
.... which I read to support the fact that the code-behind file shown
doesn't included the references to the controls.
Hopefully you see why I didn't understand your reply. The code-behind
file that VWD generated didn't include the references, the MSDN article
seems to say that that they are not needed, but when I tried it on an
existing 1.1 file of mine, the compiler complained when I removed the
references. You say that they *are* needed. I'm confused ;-)
I would appreciate any explanation you have.
Thanks for the reply.
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/ ASPNETFAQ.CO M : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/ Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ ============== =============== ========= "Alan Silver" <al*********@no spam.thanx> wrote in message news:mE******* *******@nospamt hankyou.spam... Anyone have an answer for this? Surely it must be a very common question. Am I the only person trying to convert 1.1 pages to work with 2.0?
Hello,
I have installed the 2.0 framework, and am looking at converting some of my 1.1 pages to use partial classes. I don't (yet) have VS2005, so I'm doing this by hand, but am having problems.
I have a simple page that I made in the beta2 version of VWD. The code behind looks like...
using System; using System.Web.UI;
public partial class _Default : Page { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here } }
From this, I assumed that all I needed to do to my existing code-behind files was to change the class definition to be partial, and remove the large list of lines like...
protected Literal litTest; // etc
from the class definition. I did this, but the compiler complained that litTest did not exist in the current context. If I put back the above line, it worked.
The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't have the lines in declaring each control in the code-behind, and it worked fine. What do I need to do to get my file to work like that? I looked in the folder where the files live, and couldn't see any other file relating to this page. I seem to remember that 2.0 uses a third file, which contains extra info. Is that what I'm missing? I couldn't see one for the page VWD created, and I could move this page to another site and it worked fine.
Thanks for any help.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
re: I would appreciate any explanation you have.
I short-circuited ?
It happens every so often ( even to the best among us... )
;-)
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
=============== =============== ========
"Alan Silver" <al*********@no spam.thanx> wrote in message
news:z3******** ******@nospamth ankyou.spam... Juan,
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not clear!!
As far as the first bit of your post...
Try :
using System; using System.Web.UI; // etc...
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.P age { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here }
}
I'm not sure what you're gaining by adding System.Web.UI.P age instead of just Page, as the System.Web.UI namespace is already referenced at the top of the file. Why would this make any difference?
More to the point however...
re: protected Literal litTest; // etc
That *is* needed...
Well, if you reread my original post, you will see that it seems it isn't!! VWD created an .aspx and a code-behind for me, and the "protected Literal litTest;" lines were *not* included. I copied these two files to another web server entirely, one that has never seen VWD, and the page ran fine.
Also...
See : <snip links>for other critical changes going from 1.1 to 2.0
I've seen most of that before, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.
Whilst looking through those links, I came across http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...de/default.asp x?pull=/library/en-us/dnvs05/html/migratefromaspn etto2.asp, which shows (just below figure 3) a new code-behind file, that does *not* have the "protected. .." lines in it.
Moreover, the text below the sample code explicitly states...
"The code-behind file has automatic access to any controls added to the ASP.NET page"
... which I read to support the fact that the code-behind file shown doesn't included the references to the controls.
Hopefully you see why I didn't understand your reply. The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't include the references, the MSDN article seems to say that that they are not needed, but when I tried it on an existing 1.1 file of mine, the compiler complained when I removed the references. You say that they *are* needed. I'm confused ;-)
I would appreciate any explanation you have.
Thanks for the reply.
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/ ASPNETFAQ.C OM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/ Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ ============= =============== ========== "Alan Silver" <al*********@no spam.thanx> wrote in message news:mE****** ********@nospam thankyou.spam.. . Anyone have an answer for this? Surely it must be a very common question. Am I the only person trying to convert 1.1 pages to work with 2.0?
Hello,
I have installed the 2.0 framework, and am looking at converting some of my 1.1 pages to use partial classes. I don't (yet) have VS2005, so I'm doing this by hand, but am having problems.
I have a simple page that I made in the beta2 version of VWD. The code behind looks like...
using System; using System.Web.UI;
public partial class _Default : Page { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here } }
From this, I assumed that all I needed to do to my existing code-behind files was to change the class definition to be partial, and remove the large list of lines like...
protected Literal litTest; // etc
from the class definition. I did this, but the compiler complained that litTest did not exist in the current context. If I put back the above line, it worked.
The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't have the lines in declaring each control in the code-behind, and it worked fine. What do I need to do to get my file to work like that? I looked in the folder where the files live, and couldn't see any other file relating to this page. I seem to remember that 2.0 uses a third file, which contains extra info. Is that what I'm missing? I couldn't see one for the page VWD created, and I could move this page to another site and it worked fine.
Thanks for any help.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
>re: I would appreciate any explanation you have. I short-circuited ?
It happens every so often ( even to the best among us... )
;-)
Glad to know it's not just me!!
OK, so if we agree that the control references aren't needed, are you
able to explain why I couldn't do this to an 1.1 existing page?
I changed the class declaration to be partial, and removed the list of
control declarations. That was all I could see that differentiated
between the 1.1 file I had and the 2.0 file VWD created. Oh, I also
changed the page directive of the .aspx file. When I tried to load it, I
got an exception saying a control (the first one referenced in the code)
didn't exist.
Any ideas? Thanks again
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/ ASPNETFAQ.CO M : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/ Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ ============== =============== ========= "Alan Silver" <al*********@no spam.thanx> wrote in message news:z3******* *******@nospamt hankyou.spam... Juan,
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not clear!!
As far as the first bit of your post...
Try :
using System; using System.Web.UI; // etc...
public partial class _Default : System.Web.UI.P age { protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { // do stuff here }
}
I'm not sure what you're gaining by adding System.Web.UI.P age instead of just Page, as the System.Web.UI namespace is already referenced at the top of the file. Why would this make any difference?
More to the point however...
re: protected Literal litTest; // etc
That *is* needed...
Well, if you reread my original post, you will see that it seems it isn't!! VWD created an .aspx and a code-behind for me, and the "protected Literal litTest;" lines were *not* included. I copied these two files to another web server entirely, one that has never seen VWD, and the page ran fine.
Also...
See : <snip links>for other critical changes going from 1.1 to 2.0
I've seen most of that before, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.
Whilst looking through those links, I came across http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/re...de/default.asp x?pull=/library/en-us/dnvs05/html/migratefromaspn etto2.asp, which shows (just below figure 3) a new code-behind file, that does *not* have the "protected... " lines in it.
Moreover, the text below the sample code explicitly states...
"The code-behind file has automatic access to any controls added to the ASP.NET page"
... which I read to support the fact that the code-behind file shown doesn't included the references to the controls.
Hopefully you see why I didn't understand your reply. The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't include the references, the MSDN article seems to say that that they are not needed, but when I tried it on an existing 1.1 file of mine, the compiler complained when I removed the references. You say that they *are* needed. I'm confused ;-)
I would appreciate any explanation you have.
Thanks for the reply.
Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/ ASPNETFAQ.CO M : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/ Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ ============ =============== =========== "Alan Silver" <al*********@no spam.thanx> wrote in message news:mE***** *********@nospa mthankyou.spam. .. Anyone have an answer for this? Surely it must be a very common question. Am I the only person trying to convert 1.1 pages to work with 2.0?
>Hello, > >I have installed the 2.0 framework, and am looking at converting >some of my 1.1 pages >to >use partial classes. I don't (yet) have VS2005, so I'm doing this >hand, but am >having >problems . > >I have a simple page that I made in the beta2 version of VWD. The >code behind looks >like... > >using System; >using System.Web.UI; > >public partial class _Default : Page { > protected void Page_Load(objec t sender, EventArgs e) { > // do stuff here > } >} > >From this, I assumed that all I needed to do to my existing >code-behind files was to >change the class definition to be partial, and remove the large >list of lines like... > >protecte d Literal litTest; >// etc > >from the class definition. I did this, but the compiler complained >that litTest did >not >exist in the current context. If I put back the above line, it worked. > >The code-behind file that VWD generated didn't have the lines in >declarin g each >control >in the code-behind, and it worked fine. What do I need to do to get >my file to work >like >that? I looked in the folder where the files live, and couldn't see >other file >relating to this page. I seem to remember that 2.0 uses a third >file, which contains >extra info. Is that what I'm missing? I couldn't see one for the >page VWD created, and >I >could move this page to another site and it worked fine. > >Thanks for any help. >
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
The protected control references are not needed in the codebehind page
as the aspx file and the codebehind file sine asp.net combines these 2
classes into 1 class. This is what partial class brings to the table in
..NET 2.0.
In the @page directive there will be an attribute called Inherits which
sholud point to your _Default class and another attribute called
CodeFile which VWD usues to link both files in the designer.
As far as your error goes. It would be good to see what your aspx file
looks like since your codebehind file seems to be ok.
<Plays theme from Twilight Zone>
Well, I don't know what I did differently now from the other day, but I
just tried it again and it worked fine!!
I wonder if I didn't change the Src attribute of the page directive to
CodeFile? Rereading my original post, I didn't mention doing that, so it
could be I missed that change.
Anyway, all seems to be working now. Thanks very much for your reply. The protected control references are not needed in the codebehind page as the aspx file and the codebehind file sine asp.net combines these 2 classes into 1 class. This is what partial class brings to the table in .NET 2.0.
In the @page directive there will be an attribute called Inherits which sholud point to your _Default class and another attribute called CodeFile which VWD usues to link both files in the designer.
As far as your error goes. It would be good to see what your aspx file looks like since your codebehind file seems to be ok.
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: Eric Lilja |
last post by:
Hello, I've made a templated class Option (a child of the abstract base
class OptionBase) that stores an option name (in the form someoption=) and
the value belonging to that option. The value is of the type the object is
instantiated with. In my test program I have Option<std::string> and
Option<long>. Here's the code for OptionBase and...
|
by: Omey Samaroo |
last post by:
Dear Access Gurus,
I am tasked with converting an Access 97 Database to A2K. I created Macros,
switchboards and used the full feature of buttons on forms. The A97 is also
split (FE and BE). Are there any suggestions that I should keep in mind
while attempting to do this task ?
What can I expect ?
Thanks
|
by: Charles Law |
last post by:
I thought this was going to be straight forward, given the wealth of
conversion functions in .NET, but it is proving more convoluted than
imagined.
Given the following
<code>
Dim ba(1) As Byte
Dim b As Byte
|
by: patang |
last post by:
I want to convert amount to words. Is there any funciton available?
Example:
$230.30
Two Hundred Thirty Dollars and 30/100
|
by: patang |
last post by:
Could someone please tell me where am I supposed to put this code. Actually
my project has two forms. I created a new module and have put the following
code sent by someone. All the function declaration statments (first lines)
e.g.
Public Function ConvertCurrencyToEnglish(ByVal MyNumber As Double) As String
Private Function...
| |
by: Edwin Knoppert |
last post by:
In my code i use the text from a textbox and convert it to a double value.
I was using Convert.ToDouble() but i'm used to convert comma to dot.
This way i can assure the text is correct.
However it seems this convert is determined by the local settings and comma
is indeed used as decimal separator.
Is there another way to convert a dotted...
|
by: groups |
last post by:
This is my first foray into writing a generic method and maybe I've
bitten off more than I can chew.
My intent is to have a generic method that accepts a value name and
that value will be returned from the source. My first attempt was as
follows; (please ignore that error handling is not present in this
example)
public T...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?Um95?= |
last post by:
What is the way to have best performance to copy a byte to a value such as
long?
I use
BitConverter.ToInt64(binary, offset)
But the performace is not good enough. I need to have the best performance
in my case.
|
by: tshad |
last post by:
I have a value in my sql table set to tinyint (can't set to bit).
I am trying to move it into a boolean field in my program and have tried:
isTrue = (int)dbReader
and
isTrue = Convert.ToBoolean((int)dbReader)
|
by: Debadatta Mishra |
last post by:
Introduction
In this article I will provide you an approach to manipulate an image file. This article gives you an insight into some tricks in java so that you can conceal sensitive information inside an image, hide your complete image as text ,search for a particular image inside a directory, minimize the size of the image. However this is not...
|
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...
| |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it. ...
|
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...
|
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...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the...
|
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...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes...
| |
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...
|
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...
| |