I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
A)
public sealed class RSSingleton
{
private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null;
static RSSingleton()
{
m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy();
m_RsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials;
m_RsProxy.Url =
ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] +
"/ReportService.asmx";
}
internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return m_RsProxy;}}
}
B)
public class RSFactory
{
//Empty constructor
static RSFactory()
{
}
public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy
{
get
{
ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy();
rsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials;
return rsProxy;
}
}
public static string doSomthing(..)
{
Proxy.Render(...)
}
}
I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one is not
good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance is created.I
do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net application has the
same demrits ,unless you put the object inside application variable or
session variable and persist it.Other wise when you are done working with
the object it is ready for the garbage collector to be collected and when
the second request arrives ,if the object is collected then you need to
create another instance.Am I righ?
BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
Thanks 7 1963
The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It
will not be garbage collected.
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2
people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are
accessing this one instance of the object at the same time? Depending on
what your object does, you may need to synchronize access to it. Which could
potentially slow down your app if it takes a long time to complete its work,
as well as adding complexity to anything using it, because now it has to
worry about making sure it is safe to access this object.
For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation of
this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when the
request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable
performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other problems.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
A) public sealed class RSSingleton {
private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; static RSSingleton() { m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); m_RsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; m_RsProxy.Url = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + "/ReportService.asmx"; } internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return m_RsProxy;}} }
B) public class RSFactory { //Empty constructor static RSFactory() {
} public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy { get { ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); rsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; return rsProxy; } } public static string doSomthing(..) { Proxy.Render(...) } }
I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I righ?
BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
Thanks
> The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected.
Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be
created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang around
for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one ,then it has
no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage collected.right?
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple
threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of
multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
Thanks for your reply.
"Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected.
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time? Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize access to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a long time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to anything using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is safe to access this object.
For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other problems.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
A) public sealed class RSSingleton {
private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; static RSSingleton() { m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); m_RsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; m_RsProxy.Url = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + "/ReportService.asmx"; } internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return m_RsProxy;}} }
B) public class RSFactory { //Empty constructor static RSFactory() {
} public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy { get { ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); rsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; return rsProxy; } } public static string doSomthing(..) { Proxy.Render(...) } }
I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I righ?
BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
Thanks
1. No, it is not right. When it is a static object, it means it belongs to
class type. And there is only one of that. Once it is instantiated, it stays
around for the lifetime of the application. Meaning until asp.net is shut
down or recycled.
2. ASP.NET is multithreaded - and if it wasn't, you would have a very very
slow application. This is why I suggested having the static object is not a
way to go - you have to start worrying about multiple threads accessing your
object at the same time.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected. Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang around for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one ,then it has no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage collected.right?
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
Thanks for your reply. "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected.
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time? Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize access to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a long time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to anything using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is safe to access this object.
For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other problems.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
A) public sealed class RSSingleton {
private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; static RSSingleton() { m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); m_RsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; m_RsProxy.Url = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + "/ReportService.asmx"; } internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return m_RsProxy;}} }
B) public class RSFactory { //Empty constructor static RSFactory() {
} public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy { get { ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); rsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; return rsProxy; } } public static string doSomthing(..) { Proxy.Render(...) } }
I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I righ?
BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
Thanks
About the first method,
As you can see ,it is using an static variable ,and I think static variables
are stored in the heap and objects stored on the heap can be accessed by all
threads.My object is a readonly object.what I mean by read only is that none
of the threads are trying to change it ,they only want to use it,so none of
those threads lock the object.Having said all this,do you still think that I
have still thread issue.
Thanks
"Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... 1. No, it is not right. When it is a static object, it means it belongs to class type. And there is only one of that. Once it is instantiated, it stays around for the lifetime of the application. Meaning until asp.net is shut down or recycled.
2. ASP.NET is multithreaded - and if it wasn't, you would have a very very slow application. This is why I suggested having the static object is not a way to go - you have to start worrying about multiple threads accessing your object at the same time.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected. Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang around for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one ,then it has no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage collected.right?
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
Thanks for your reply. "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected.
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time? Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize access to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a long time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to anything using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is safe to access this object.
For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other problems.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
A) public sealed class RSSingleton {
private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; static RSSingleton() { m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); m_RsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; m_RsProxy.Url = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + "/ReportService.asmx"; } internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return m_RsProxy;}} }
B) public class RSFactory { //Empty constructor static RSFactory() {
} public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy { get { ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); rsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; return rsProxy; } } public static string doSomthing(..) { Proxy.Render(...) } }
I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I righ?
BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
Thanks
If your answer to my previous post is NO,can you guid me to some references
I can read more about that specific behavior?
Thanks a lot for follwoing up this.
"Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... 1. No, it is not right. When it is a static object, it means it belongs to class type. And there is only one of that. Once it is instantiated, it stays around for the lifetime of the application. Meaning until asp.net is shut down or recycled.
2. ASP.NET is multithreaded - and if it wasn't, you would have a very very slow application. This is why I suggested having the static object is not a way to go - you have to start worrying about multiple threads accessing your object at the same time.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected. Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang around for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one ,then it has no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage collected.right?
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
Thanks for your reply. "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected.
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time? Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize access to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a long time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to anything using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is safe to access this object.
For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other problems.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways:
A) public sealed class RSSingleton {
private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; static RSSingleton() { m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); m_RsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; m_RsProxy.Url = ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + "/ReportService.asmx"; } internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return m_RsProxy;}} }
B) public class RSFactory { //Empty constructor static RSFactory() {
} public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy { get { ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); rsProxy.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; return rsProxy; } } public static string doSomthing(..) { Proxy.Render(...) } }
I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I righ?
BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice.
Thanks
If the object will be used for read only purposes, then going the static
route is fine.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message
news:OO**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... About the first method,
As you can see ,it is using an static variable ,and I think static variables are stored in the heap and objects stored on the heap can be accessed by all threads.My object is a readonly object.what I mean by read only is that none of the threads are trying to change it ,they only want to use it,so none of those threads lock the object.Having said all this,do you still think that I have still thread issue.
Thanks "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... 1. No, it is not right. When it is a static object, it means it belongs to class type. And there is only one of that. Once it is instantiated, it stays around for the lifetime of the application. Meaning until asp.net is shut down or recycled.
2. ASP.NET is multithreaded - and if it wasn't, you would have a very very slow application. This is why I suggested having the static object is not a way to go - you have to start worrying about multiple threads accessing your object at the same time.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected. Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang around for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one ,then it has no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage collected.right?
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time?
ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
Thanks for your reply. "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. It will not be garbage collected.
However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same time? Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize access to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a long time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to anything using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is safe to access this object.
For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other problems.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways: > > A) > public sealed class RSSingleton > { > > private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; > static RSSingleton() > { > m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); > m_RsProxy.Credentials = > System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; > m_RsProxy.Url = > ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + > "/ReportService.asmx"; > } > internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return > m_RsProxy;}} > } > > > B) > public class RSFactory > { > //Empty constructor > static RSFactory() > { > > } > public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy > { > get > { > ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); > rsProxy.Credentials = > System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; > return rsProxy; > } > } > public static string doSomthing(..) > { > Proxy.Render(...) > } > } > > > I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one > is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance > is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net > application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside > application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise > when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage > collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the > object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I > righ? > > BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice. > > Thanks >
Thanks a lot for your nice help
"Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... If the object will be used for read only purposes, then going the static route is fine.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:OO**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... About the first method,
As you can see ,it is using an static variable ,and I think static variables are stored in the heap and objects stored on the heap can be accessed by all threads.My object is a readonly object.what I mean by read only is that none of the threads are trying to change it ,they only want to use it,so none of those threads lock the object.Having said all this,do you still think that I have still thread issue.
Thanks "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... 1. No, it is not right. When it is a static object, it means it belongs to class type. And there is only one of that. Once it is instantiated, it stays around for the lifetime of the application. Meaning until asp.net is shut down or recycled.
2. ASP.NET is multithreaded - and if it wasn't, you would have a very very slow application. This is why I suggested having the static object is not a way to go - you have to start worrying about multiple threads accessing your object at the same time.
"J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. > It will not be garbage collected. Why it is not gargage collected? Imagine a request makes this object be created and when the request is done the object is there ,may hang around for a while and if no one else (no other request) uses that one ,then it has no reference to it and it's ready to be garbage collected.right?
> However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. > If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their > threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same > time?
ASP.NET application is a multi-threaded one and there is always multiple threads working with objects it create,There is no way of getting rid of multiple threads working at the same time ,right?
Thanks for your reply. "Marina" <so*****@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ec**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > The first way, you will have one instance for the entire asp.net app. > It will not be garbage collected. > > However, you are opening yourself up for potential threading issues. > If 2 people make a request at the same time, what if both their > threads are accessing this one instance of the object at the same > time? Depending on what your object does, you may need to synchronize > access to it. Which could potentially slow down your app if it takes a > long time to complete its work, as well as adding complexity to > anything using it, because now it has to worry about making sure it is > safe to access this object. > > For asp.net, hands down I would go with way #2. Odds are, the creation > of this object is not expensive, and it will be garbage collected when > the request is finished. You aren't really going to see a noticeable > performance difference, and you will avoid a whole lot of other > problems. > > "J-T" <J-*@microsft.com> wrote in message > news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>I can instantiate my object in my *ASP.NET* application in two ways: >> >> A) >> public sealed class RSSingleton >> { >> >> private static ReportingServiceProxy m_RsProxy=null; >> static RSSingleton() >> { >> m_RsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); >> m_RsProxy.Credentials = >> System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; >> m_RsProxy.Url = >> ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings[Constants.CONFIG_RS_URL] + >> "/ReportService.asmx"; >> } >> internal static ReportingServiceProxy Instance{get{return >> m_RsProxy;}} >> } >> >> >> B) >> public class RSFactory >> { >> //Empty constructor >> static RSFactory() >> { >> >> } >> public static ReportingServiceProxy Proxy >> { >> get >> { >> ReportingServiceProxy rsProxy = new ReportingServiceProxy(); >> rsProxy.Credentials = >> System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; >> return rsProxy; >> } >> } >> public static string doSomthing(..) >> { >> Proxy.Render(...) >> } >> } >> >> >> I personally like the second one.Some people say that the second one >> is not good because everytime you call doSomthing(..) a new instance >> is created.I do agree with it ,but the first approach in an aasp.net >> application has the same demrits ,unless you put the object inside >> application variable or session variable and persist it.Other wise >> when you are done working with the object it is ready for the garbage >> collector to be collected and when the second request arrives ,if the >> object is collected then you need to create another instance.Am I >> righ? >> >> BTW ReportingServiceProxy is a proxy class of a webservice. >> >> Thanks >> > >
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Colin Mc Mahon |
last post by:
Hi all,
I currently use a class to interface with my databases, allowing me to
insert, update, delete and retrieve records from the database as methods of
the class.
I have now created a...
|
by: Carel Lotz |
last post by:
H
We have ported our VB 6 application into VB .NET but are still integrating with a few COM + applications written in VB6 running on our application server (Win 2000 Server). We have the proxies...
|
by: thechaosengine |
last post by:
Hi everyone,
I've been looking at the various ways to create a data access layer recently.
There was one thing in particular that occured to me and I was hoping to
garner some experienced...
|
by: Glenn Serpas |
last post by:
I have Class A and Class B .. Class B has a private member that is a pointer
to a Class A object.
private:
B *mypointer ;
I instantiate the A object
A* myobject new = A();
|
by: gabon |
last post by:
Due a big project I would like to create different javascript classes
and assign them to divs. But how? :)
I know the usage of prototype but given that this could be possible:
function...
|
by: the_grove_man |
last post by:
I guess my question can go in two directions. I create applications
that run multiple queries against a database. Generally speaking in the
past I have used a Data Control (calling it dat1)...
|
by: Brian |
last post by:
I have many similar classes in a project, one for each type of report
my app can create. I want to instantiate them based on a value passed
in by a scheduler module.
Right now I have
Sub...
|
by: Tomas |
last post by:
A newbie question: How can I instantiate objects dynamically in
VB.NET. E.g. I have the object 'Player' and I would like to
instantiate it with the several instances (James, Gunner, etc.),
without...
|
by: RyanN |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm trying to teach myself OOP to do a data project involving
hierarchical data structures.
I've come up with an analogy for testing involving objects for
continents, countries, and...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM).
In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM).
In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
|
by: jfyes |
last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
|
by: ArrayDB |
last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
|
by: PapaRatzi |
last post by:
Hello,
I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
|
by: Defcon1945 |
last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
|
by: af34tf |
last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
|
by: Faith0G |
last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
| |