Below is a bit of code that creates a delegate.
The delegate invokes a member function of a struct.
The code compiles, but has surprising behavior:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplicat ion1
{
public struct SimpleStruct
{
public int i;
public void assignToI(int x)
{
Console.WriteLi ne("Assigning i: " + x);
i = x;
Console.WriteLi ne("i = " + x);
}
}
class Class1
{
public delegate void Assigner(int s);
private static void callDelegate(As signer a, int i)
{
a(i);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SimpleStruct s = new SimpleStruct();
s.assignToI(1); // Works as expected, assigns 1 to s.i
System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling assignToI = " + s.i);
// Create a delegate that calls assignToI()
Assigner assign_to_i = new Assigner(s.assi gnToI);
// Call helper function, passing delegate and new value for s.i
callDelegate(as sign_to_i, 99);
System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling delegate = " + s.i);
// Assignment is lost, s.i still contains 1!!!
}
}
}
When run, this code prints:
$ ./ConsoleApplicat ion1.exe
Assigning i: 1
i = 1
s.i after calling assignToI = 1
Assigning i: 99
i = 99
s.i after calling delegate = 1
Note that the direct call s.assignToI() works as expected:
after the call, the structure member has new value.
However, the call via the delagate does not work as expected:
the value that is assigned is lost, and the structure member
has the old value.
Now, I realize what is going on here. The delegate constructor
expects an argument of type object. In other words, the expression
new Assigner(s.assi gnToI)
is internally converted to something like
new Delegate(s, "assignToI" )
So, the struct is silently boxed and, when the delegate runs,
what it assigns to is a temporary copy of the struct on the heap,
instead of assigning to the real struct.
Several thoughts here:
1) I find this surprising. At no point in my code have I passed the
structure as a parameter, so I don't expect this behavior. (Yes,
I know that the struct ends up being boxed, but that is not manifest
anywhere in the code.)
2) I believe that the behavior is wrong. (Yes, I understand *why* it
works the way it does, but that doesn't necessarily make the behavior
right.) Delegates are the equivalent of C++ member function pointers.
If I create a delegate and pass a method of a struct, I expect the
delegate to call the method on the struct instance I specified, not
some temporary copy.
3) Even if we accept that the behavior is correct, then why does the compiler
allow me to write this? After all, there is no way that such a delegate would
ever do something useful, so why not at least emit a warning?
4) The silent boxing and unboxing in C# seems to be more of a curse than helpful.
It is too easy to have a value type boxed, only to end up with invocations
made to a boxed copy on the heap.
Finally, I'm looking for suggestions as to how I can achieve what the above
code is trying to do. Basically, what I need to do is assign to a member of
an already instantiated structure, but without knowing the type of the structure.
That is, I want to, at least in spirit, be able to assign to a structure member
via a pointer to the structure.
(This issue arises in the context of unmarshaling data from the wire and, for
various legitimate reasons, I have to assign to a member of an already instatiated
structure, instead of instantiating the structure after I have all its member values.)
I tried using pointers and unsafe code, but that only works for types that are unmanaged.
However, the structure may contain managed members, in which case I can no
longer create a pointer to the struct, so this doesn't work either.
Any other ideas anyone?
Thanks,
Michi. 16 1859
If you make SimpleStruct a class, it will work as expected. The problem is
that a struct is a value type, not a reference.
Read more here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...arpspec_11.asp
Pete
"Michi Henning" <mi***@zeroc.co m> wrote in message
news:OU******** **********@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l... Below is a bit of code that creates a delegate. The delegate invokes a member function of a struct. The code compiles, but has surprising behavior:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplicat ion1 { public struct SimpleStruct { public int i;
public void assignToI(int x) { Console.WriteLi ne("Assigning i: " + x); i = x; Console.WriteLi ne("i = " + x); } }
class Class1 { public delegate void Assigner(int s);
private static void callDelegate(As signer a, int i) { a(i); }
static void Main(string[] args) { SimpleStruct s = new SimpleStruct(); s.assignToI(1); // Works as expected, assigns 1 to s.i System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling assignToI = " + s.i);
// Create a delegate that calls assignToI() Assigner assign_to_i = new Assigner(s.assi gnToI);
// Call helper function, passing delegate and new value for s.i callDelegate(as sign_to_i, 99);
System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling delegate = " + s.i); // Assignment is lost, s.i still contains 1!!! } } }
When run, this code prints:
$ ./ConsoleApplicat ion1.exe Assigning i: 1 i = 1 s.i after calling assignToI = 1 Assigning i: 99 i = 99 s.i after calling delegate = 1
Note that the direct call s.assignToI() works as expected: after the call, the structure member has new value.
However, the call via the delagate does not work as expected: the value that is assigned is lost, and the structure member has the old value.
Now, I realize what is going on here. The delegate constructor expects an argument of type object. In other words, the expression
new Assigner(s.assi gnToI)
is internally converted to something like
new Delegate(s, "assignToI" )
So, the struct is silently boxed and, when the delegate runs, what it assigns to is a temporary copy of the struct on the heap, instead of assigning to the real struct.
Several thoughts here:
1) I find this surprising. At no point in my code have I passed the structure as a parameter, so I don't expect this behavior. (Yes, I know that the struct ends up being boxed, but that is not manifest anywhere in the code.)
2) I believe that the behavior is wrong. (Yes, I understand *why* it works the way it does, but that doesn't necessarily make the behavior right.) Delegates are the equivalent of C++ member function pointers. If I create a delegate and pass a method of a struct, I expect the delegate to call the method on the struct instance I specified, not some temporary copy.
3) Even if we accept that the behavior is correct, then why does the compiler allow me to write this? After all, there is no way that such a delegate would ever do something useful, so why not at least emit a warning?
4) The silent boxing and unboxing in C# seems to be more of a curse than helpful. It is too easy to have a value type boxed, only to end up with invocations made to a boxed copy on the heap.
Finally, I'm looking for suggestions as to how I can achieve what the above code is trying to do. Basically, what I need to do is assign to a member of an already instantiated structure, but without knowing the type of the structure. That is, I want to, at least in spirit, be able to assign to a structure member via a pointer to the structure. (This issue arises in the context of unmarshaling data from the wire and, for various legitimate reasons, I have to assign to a member of an already instatiated structure, instead of instantiating the structure after I have all its member values.)
I tried using pointers and unsafe code, but that only works for types that are unmanaged. However, the structure may contain managed members, in which case I can no longer create a pointer to the struct, so this doesn't work either.
Any other ideas anyone?
Thanks,
Michi.
Pete Davis wrote: If you make SimpleStruct a class, it will work as expected. The problem is that a struct is a value type, not a reference.
Yes, I am aware of that. As I said in my post:
So, the struct is silently boxed and, when the delegate runs, what it assigns to is a temporary copy of the struct on the heap, instead of assigning to the real struct.
[...]
4) The silent boxing and unboxing in C# seems to be more of a curse than helpful. It is too easy to have a value type boxed, only to end up with invocations made to a boxed copy on the heap.
My point is that either it shouldn't behave as it does or, if it has to behave
as it does, the compiler should at least warn me that it's not going to work.
Michi.
Michi Henning <mi***@zeroc.co m> wrote: Below is a bit of code that creates a delegate. The delegate invokes a member function of a struct. The code compiles, but has surprising behavior:
<snip>
3) Even if we accept that the behavior is correct, then why does the compiler allow me to write this? After all, there is no way that such a delegate would ever do something useful, so why not at least emit a warning?
What do you expect it to do if the delegate "lives" for longer than the
current stack frame? What could it possibly operate on then?
Furthermore, how do you expect the delegate to maintain a reference to
the struct on the stack in the first place?
Note that this behaviour is well-defined in the spec - see section
14.5.10.3 of the ECMA spec.
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
Hi,
if I compile your code under Rotor csc, it gives me the following error:
---------------------------------------
Unhandled Exception: System.NotSuppo rtedException: Delegates on value
classes can only be formed on virtual methods
at System.Delegate .NeverCallThis( Object target, IntPtr slot)
at ConsoleApplicat ion1.Class1.Mai n(String[] args)
---------------------------------------
Ab. http://joehacker.blogspot.com
"Michi Henning" <mi***@zeroc.co m> wrote in message
news:OU******** **********@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l... Below is a bit of code that creates a delegate. The delegate invokes a member function of a struct. The code compiles, but has surprising behavior:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplicat ion1 { public struct SimpleStruct { public int i;
public void assignToI(int x) { Console.WriteLi ne("Assigning i: " + x); i = x; Console.WriteLi ne("i = " + x); } }
class Class1 { public delegate void Assigner(int s);
private static void callDelegate(As signer a, int i) { a(i); }
static void Main(string[] args) { SimpleStruct s = new SimpleStruct(); s.assignToI(1); // Works as expected, assigns 1 to s.i System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling assignToI = " +
s.i); // Create a delegate that calls assignToI() Assigner assign_to_i = new Assigner(s.assi gnToI);
// Call helper function, passing delegate and new value for
s.i callDelegate(as sign_to_i, 99);
System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling delegate = " +
s.i); // Assignment is lost, s.i still contains 1!!! } } }
When run, this code prints:
$ ./ConsoleApplicat ion1.exe Assigning i: 1 i = 1 s.i after calling assignToI = 1 Assigning i: 99 i = 99 s.i after calling delegate = 1
Note that the direct call s.assignToI() works as expected: after the call, the structure member has new value.
However, the call via the delagate does not work as expected: the value that is assigned is lost, and the structure member has the old value.
Now, I realize what is going on here. The delegate constructor expects an argument of type object. In other words, the expression
new Assigner(s.assi gnToI)
is internally converted to something like
new Delegate(s, "assignToI" )
So, the struct is silently boxed and, when the delegate runs, what it assigns to is a temporary copy of the struct on the heap, instead of assigning to the real struct.
Several thoughts here:
1) I find this surprising. At no point in my code have I passed the structure as a parameter, so I don't expect this behavior. (Yes, I know that the struct ends up being boxed, but that is not manifest anywhere in the code.)
2) I believe that the behavior is wrong. (Yes, I understand *why* it works the way it does, but that doesn't necessarily make the behavior right.) Delegates are the equivalent of C++ member function pointers. If I create a delegate and pass a method of a struct, I expect the delegate to call the method on the struct instance I specified, not some temporary copy.
3) Even if we accept that the behavior is correct, then why does the
compiler allow me to write this? After all, there is no way that such a
delegate would ever do something useful, so why not at least emit a warning?
4) The silent boxing and unboxing in C# seems to be more of a curse than
helpful. It is too easy to have a value type boxed, only to end up with
invocations made to a boxed copy on the heap.
Finally, I'm looking for suggestions as to how I can achieve what the
above code is trying to do. Basically, what I need to do is assign to a member
of an already instantiated structure, but without knowing the type of the
structure. That is, I want to, at least in spirit, be able to assign to a structure
member via a pointer to the structure. (This issue arises in the context of unmarshaling data from the wire and,
for various legitimate reasons, I have to assign to a member of an already
instatiated structure, instead of instantiating the structure after I have all its
member values.) I tried using pointers and unsafe code, but that only works for types that
are unmanaged. However, the structure may contain managed members, in which case I can no longer create a pointer to the struct, so this doesn't work either.
Any other ideas anyone?
Thanks,
Michi.
I meant compile AND run.
Ab.
"Abubakar" <ab*******@gmai l.com> wrote in message
news:eR******** *****@TK2MSFTNG P10.phx.gbl... Hi, if I compile your code under Rotor csc, it gives me the following error: --------------------------------------- Unhandled Exception: System.NotSuppo rtedException: Delegates on value classes can only be formed on virtual methods at System.Delegate .NeverCallThis( Object target, IntPtr slot) at ConsoleApplicat ion1.Class1.Mai n(String[] args) ---------------------------------------
Ab. http://joehacker.blogspot.com
"Michi Henning" <mi***@zeroc.co m> wrote in message news:OU******** **********@TK2M SFTNGP09.phx.gb l... Below is a bit of code that creates a delegate. The delegate invokes a member function of a struct. The code compiles, but has surprising behavior:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplicat ion1 { public struct SimpleStruct { public int i;
public void assignToI(int x) { Console.WriteLi ne("Assigning i: " + x); i = x; Console.WriteLi ne("i = " + x); } }
class Class1 { public delegate void Assigner(int s);
private static void callDelegate(As signer a, int i) { a(i); }
static void Main(string[] args) { SimpleStruct s = new SimpleStruct(); s.assignToI(1); // Works as expected, assigns 1 to s.i System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling assignToI = " + s.i); // Create a delegate that calls assignToI() Assigner assign_to_i = new Assigner(s.assi gnToI);
// Call helper function, passing delegate and new value for
s.i callDelegate(as sign_to_i, 99);
System.Console. WriteLine("s.i after calling delegate = " + s.i); // Assignment is lost, s.i still contains 1!!! } } }
When run, this code prints:
$ ./ConsoleApplicat ion1.exe Assigning i: 1 i = 1 s.i after calling assignToI = 1 Assigning i: 99 i = 99 s.i after calling delegate = 1
Note that the direct call s.assignToI() works as expected: after the call, the structure member has new value.
However, the call via the delagate does not work as expected: the value that is assigned is lost, and the structure member has the old value.
Now, I realize what is going on here. The delegate constructor expects an argument of type object. In other words, the expression
new Assigner(s.assi gnToI)
is internally converted to something like
new Delegate(s, "assignToI" )
So, the struct is silently boxed and, when the delegate runs, what it assigns to is a temporary copy of the struct on the heap, instead of assigning to the real struct.
Several thoughts here:
1) I find this surprising. At no point in my code have I passed the structure as a parameter, so I don't expect this behavior. (Yes, I know that the struct ends up being boxed, but that is not manifest anywhere in the code.)
2) I believe that the behavior is wrong. (Yes, I understand *why* it works the way it does, but that doesn't necessarily make the
behavior right.) Delegates are the equivalent of C++ member function
pointers. If I create a delegate and pass a method of a struct, I expect the delegate to call the method on the struct instance I specified, not some temporary copy.
3) Even if we accept that the behavior is correct, then why does the compiler allow me to write this? After all, there is no way that such a delegate would ever do something useful, so why not at least emit a warning?
4) The silent boxing and unboxing in C# seems to be more of a curse than helpful. It is too easy to have a value type boxed, only to end up with invocations made to a boxed copy on the heap.
Finally, I'm looking for suggestions as to how I can achieve what the above code is trying to do. Basically, what I need to do is assign to a member of an already instantiated structure, but without knowing the type of the structure. That is, I want to, at least in spirit, be able to assign to a structure member via a pointer to the structure. (This issue arises in the context of unmarshaling data from the wire
and, for various legitimate reasons, I have to assign to a member of an already instatiated structure, instead of instantiating the structure after I have all its member values.) I tried using pointers and unsafe code, but that only works for types
that are unmanaged. However, the structure may contain managed members, in which case I can
no longer create a pointer to the struct, so this doesn't work either.
Any other ideas anyone?
Thanks,
Michi.
The difficulty, as I see it, is that you are using a screwdriver to
pound a nail into a wall.
Why do you have a mutable structure in the first place? Yes, I know
that Microsoft did it with Point, Rectangle, etc. (for specific
performance reasons), but that doesn't make it generally good practice,
because you end up with precisely the kinds of problems you're
outlining here.
I've built many structs, but they're all immutable, so they act just
like values, like int, double, etc., so I never run across these
problems.
Should it be easier to modify a struct field using something like a C++
method pointer? That sounds to me like the assertion that it really
should be easier to use a screwdriver as a hammer, and there's
something wrong with screwdrivers that doesn't permit them to be easily
used in that way.
I side with Pete Davis: What design problem caused you to choose a
struct over a class here?
Jon Skeet [C# MVP] wrote:
What do you expect it to do if the delegate "lives" for longer than the current stack frame? What could it possibly operate on then?
When the delegate tries to call the struct member function, it could
throw an exception if the struct is no longer there.
Furthermore, how do you expect the delegate to maintain a reference to the struct on the stack in the first place?
Well, that would be the job of the compiler.
Note that this behaviour is well-defined in the spec - see section 14.5.10.3 of the ECMA spec.
Right. No argument there. The behavior is exactly as prescribed by
the spec. That doesn't make it any more useful though ;-)
I honestly can't think of why I would want to deliberately do this--
having a delegate call into a temporary anonymous copy of a value
type would never achieve anything useful, as far as I can see.
It would be nice if the compiler emitted a warning for this case.
Cheers,
Michi.
Bruce Wood wrote: Why do you have a mutable structure in the first place? Yes, I know that Microsoft did it with Point, Rectangle, etc. (for specific performance reasons), but that doesn't make it generally good practice, because you end up with precisely the kinds of problems you're outlining here.
[...]
Should it be easier to modify a struct field using something like a C++ method pointer? That sounds to me like the assertion that it really should be easier to use a screwdriver as a hammer, and there's something wrong with screwdrivers that doesn't permit them to be easily used in that way.
I side with Pete Davis: What design problem caused you to choose a struct over a class here?
The whole story is quite complex. It arises in the context of
unmarshaling data for the Ice middleware. If you want to know
all the details, check out the Slice chapter and the Protocol
chapter in the Ice documentation ( http://www.zeroc.com/Ice-Manual.pdf).
Read up on structs and classes.
Basically, a Slice struct maps to a C# struct by default. Slice
structs can contain class members, which map to C# references.
And classes can form circular graphs. To unmarshal cycles of classes,
it is necessary to break the cycle somewhere. In turn, that means
that I must unmarshal a class instance before all the values of
its data members have been unmarshaled. The way the unmarshaling
code deals with this is to unmarshal the class instance and then
later, when an instance arrives that is referred to by a member of
the first instance, the code patches the corresponding member in
the first instance by assigning to it.
This isn't a problem for classes, because they are reference types,
but it is a problem for structures, which aren't.
The language mapping maps Slice structs to C# structs for efficiency
reasons--it's faster to instantiate a struct than to instantiate a
class.
Cheers,
Michi.
Abubakar wrote: Hi, if I compile your code under Rotor csc, it gives me the following error: --------------------------------------- Unhandled Exception: System.NotSuppo rtedException: Delegates on value classes can only be formed on virtual methods at System.Delegate .NeverCallThis( Object target, IntPtr slot) at ConsoleApplicat ion1.Class1.Mai n(String[] args) ---------------------------------------
Interesting! I don't have Rotor csc. Does the error go away
if you make assignToI() a virtual method?
Cheers,
Michi. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: Brian |
last post by:
I am very new to C# programming and have run into a problem.
I apologize for the repost of this article. For some reason, my news
reader attached it to an existing thread.
First off, I have an SDK that I have written for C/C++ and would like to
port it to C# if at all possible.
Basically, I've got a structure that I need to pass to the C-style DLL
(i.e. no mangled names - everything is __stdcall). This structure needs
|
by: LP |
last post by:
Hello!
I am still transitioning from VB.NET to C#. I undertand the basic concepts
of Delegates, more so of Events and somewhat understand AsyncCallback
methods. But I need some clarification on when to use one over another? If
anyone could provide any additional info, your comments, best practices, any
good articles, specific examples, etc.
Thank you
|
by: Mas L via DotNetMonster.com |
last post by:
Hi,
I have a c++ source code which I can compile to be a DLL (in VS.NET 2003).
And I need to use it in a C# program.
After I compiled/build the C++ code to a DLL, I add it as a Reference in my
C# program.
When I look at the reference and I double click to view it in the objec
browser , I see only structs , without their members. And I don't see methods.
|
by: Jeff S. |
last post by:
In a Windows Forms application I plan to have a collection of structs - each
of which contains a bunch of properties describing a person (e.g., LastName,
FirstName, EmployeeID, HomeAddress, ZipCode, etc). So each instance of the
struct will describe a person - and about 900 instances (people) will be
contained in the collection.
Users must be able to search for a specific person by any of the properties
(e.g., LastName, FirstName,...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?Sko=?= |
last post by:
I have a logger component that logs to multiple sources, ie textfile,
eventlog etc.
and I have two methods that depending on where I call up my logger comp. one
of them will be called. For ex. if I throw an exception I want to call one
method and if I dont, I am just logging some info to eventlog, I will call
the other. Now i'm wondering would it make sense to use delegates, one for
each method to call methods in my window service? How...
| |
by: bharathreddy |
last post by:
Delegates
Here in this article I will explain about delegates in brief. Some important points about delegates. This article is meant to only those who already know delegates, it will be a quick review not a detailed one.
Delegates quite simply are special type of object, a delegate just contains the details of a method.
One good way to understanding delegates is by thinking of delegates as something that gives a name to a method...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?T2xkQ2FEb2c=?= |
last post by:
My question is regarding the use of delegates in C#. I see how .Net uses
delegates to wire event handlers to events. It’s an object created by a
single line of code by the system and that makes perfect sense to me. I
understand that there is a lot of code underneath that the system has created
that makes it all work, thereby making it pretty efficient for the programmer.
Outside of the use of delegates to wire event handlers, you can...
|
by: Siegfried Heintze |
last post by:
I'm studying the book "Microsoft Visual Basic.NET Language Reference" and I
would like some clarify the difference between events and delegates. On page
156 I see a WinForms example of timer that uses the "WithEvents" and events.
There is another example on page 124 that shows how to use delegates to sort
an array.
I don't understand the difference between events and delegates. Are they
redundant features? How do I decide which to use?
...
|
by: raylopez99 |
last post by:
They usually don't teach you in most textbooks I've seen that
delegates can be used to call class methods from classes that are
'unaware' of the delegate, so long as the class has the same signature
for the method (i.e., as below, int Square (int)).
Here is an example to show that feature. Note class "UnAwareClass"
has its methods Square and Cuber called by a class DelegateClass.
This is because these methods in UnAwareClass have the...
|
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: 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.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| |
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 choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
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: 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 instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: 6302768590 |
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
| |
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |