Add text to cursor location?

[Anthony]

Is it possible to add text to the cursor location.  When i am loading a
form..i have set the cursor.waitcursor but also want to add text!  Possible?

 

  Is your website being
IntelliXperienced?
regards
Anthony (*12QWERNB*)

Is your website being IntelliXperienced?

 

 

Re: Add text to cursor location?

[.net noobie]

maybe you could do something like in this example, "DrawCursorsOnForm"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/4w858ek0(v=VS.100).aspx

combinded with something like this example
http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/csharp-snippet-tutorial-how-to-draw-text-on-an-image


I have never tried this type of thing for a cursor myself
I just read your post and this is how I would do my first attempt at it

:)


On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Anthony  wrote:

>  Is it possible to add text to the cursor location.  When i am loading a
> form..i have set the cursor.waitcursor but also want to add text!  Possible?
>
>
>
> Is your website being 
> IntelliXperienced?
> regards
> Anthony (*12QWERNB*)
>
> Is your website being IntelliXperienced?
>
>
>
>
>

RE: Ignoring excpetions in catch

[James Chapman-Smith]

Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally &
figuratively.

I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle
exceptions. Very few.

Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It
makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in
the wrong classes in the wrong projects.

No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but
the most experienced developers.

Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert -
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp
x - he sums it up nicely I think.

:-)

James. 

-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch

I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any
pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this:

try
{
  //some code goes here
}
catch
{
  //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions!
}

but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was
unexpected!
in the code in the above link are there any reasons for
1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least
the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before
using a sledge hammer?

2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be
definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion?

3)Any other suggestions?

Regards

Arjang

Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch

[Matt]

LOL, when I tried that link, I got an exception(404) AND IT WASN'T 
HANDLED, ROFL.


I guess that's your point!

Regards,

Matt
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. 
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,

by definition, not smart enough to debug it." Brian W. Kernighan



James Chapman-Smith wrote:

Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally &
figuratively.

I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle
exceptions. Very few.

Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It
makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in
the wrong classes in the wrong projects.

No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but
the most experienced developers.

Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert -
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp
x - he sums it up nicely I think.

:-)

James. 


-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch

I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any
pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this:

try
{
  //some code goes here
}
catch
{
  //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions!
}

but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was
unexpected!
in the code in the above link are there any reasons for
1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least
the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before
using a sledge hammer?

2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be
definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion?

3)Any other suggestions?

Regards

Arjang



  

RE: Ignoring excpetions in catch

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi Matt,

Text wrapping got the best of you I suspect ... The 'x' from the .aspx
extension was wrapped onto the next line of the message.

Cheers,
Trevor

-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 10:50 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch

LOL, when I tried that link, I got an exception(404) AND IT WASN'T 
HANDLED, ROFL.

I guess that's your point!

Regards,

Matt
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. 
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." Brian W. Kernighan



James Chapman-Smith wrote:
> Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally &
> figuratively.
>
> I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle
> exceptions. Very few.
>
> Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It
> makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in
> the wrong classes in the wrong projects.
>
> No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but
> the most experienced developers.
>
> Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert -
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp
> x - he sums it up nicely I think.
>
> :-)
>
> James. 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09
> To: ozDotNet
> Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch
>
> I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any
> pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this:
>
> try
> {
>   //some code goes here
> }
> catch
> {
>   //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions!
> }
>
> but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was
> unexpected!
> in the code in the above link are there any reasons for
> 1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least
> the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before
> using a sledge hammer?
>
> 2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be
> definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion?
>
> 3)Any other suggestions?
>
> Regards
>
> Arjang
>
>
>
>   

Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch

[mike smith]

On 1 June 2010 18:37, James Chapman-Smith  wrote:
> Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally &
> figuratively.
>
> I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle
> exceptions. Very few.
>
> Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It
> makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in
> the wrong classes in the wrong projects.
>
> No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but
> the most experienced developers.
>
> Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert -
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp
> x - he sums it up nicely I think.
>

Fatal exceptions:  you might want to do something like write out a
.dmp file before you put the process out of its misery.  That'd
normally be SEH, and there are nicer ways of doing it now.


> :-)
>
> James.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09
> To: ozDotNet
> Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch
>
> I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any
> pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this:
>
> try
> {
>  //some code goes here
> }
> catch
> {
>  //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions!
> }
>
> but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was
> unexpected!
> in the code in the above link are there any reasons for
> 1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least
> the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before
> using a sledge hammer?
>
> 2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be
> definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion?
>
> 3)Any other suggestions?
>
> Regards
>
> Arjang
>
>



-- 
Meski

"Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure,
you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills

RE: Ignoring excpetions in catch

[Nick Wienholt]

Hi Mike,

> Fatal exceptions:  you might want to do something like write out a
> .dmp file before you put the process out of its misery

I'd probably prefer to leave this to a tool like ADPlus rather than have 
application code (particularly managed application code) do it.  There doesn't 
seem much advantage of trying to capture the information from a process in a 
state of distress.

Nick

-Original Message-
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of mike smith
Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 1:14 PM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch

On 1 June 2010 18:37, James Chapman-Smith  wrote:
> Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally &
> figuratively.
>
> I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle
> exceptions. Very few.
>
> Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It
> makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in
> the wrong classes in the wrong projects.
>
> No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but
> the most experienced developers.
>
> Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert -
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp
> x - he sums it up nicely I think.
>

Fatal exceptions:  you might want to do something like write out a
.dmp file before you put the process out of its misery.  That'd
normally be SEH, and there are nicer ways of doing it now.


> :-)
>
> James.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09
> To: ozDotNet
> Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch
>
> I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any
> pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this:
>
> try
> {
>  //some code goes here
> }
> catch
> {
>  //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions!
> }
>
> but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was
> unexpected!
> in the code in the above link are there any reasons for
> 1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least
> the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before
> using a sledge hammer?
>
> 2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be
> definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion?
>
> 3)Any other suggestions?
>
> Regards
>
> Arjang
>
>



-- 
Meski

"Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure,
you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills

RE: ASP.NET MAC Validation issue

[Rajat Saddi]

Hi Tiang,

Sources on the Internet state that this error occurs when a page is posted back 
to a web server via an ASP.NET Button or Link control.

The issue can also occur within an ASP.NET 2.0 GridView, DetailsView, or 
FormView that utilize the DataKeyNames property

More complex details on this error can be found in the links below:

http://forums.asp.net/t/955145.aspx?PageIndex=1
http://aspadvice.com/blogs/joteke/archive/2006/02/02/15011.aspx

Unfortunately, there is more than one combination of fixes to this problem.

Solution:
The solution that fixed this problem for me is to add the following element 
(and attributes) to a Web applications Web.Config file:



NOTE:  The  element resides as a child under the  element

Cheers,
Raj

"Tough Times Never Last, But Tough People Do"

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Tiang Cheng
Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 9:43 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: ASP.NET MAC Validation issue

Hi all,

I'm receiving a http web exception "Validation of viewstate MAC failed. If this 
application is hosted by a Web Farm or cluster, ensure that  
configuration specifies the same validationKey and validation algorithm. 
AutoGenerate cannot be used in a cluster."


I've added a machineKey to my web.config under the , which defines 
a validation key and algorithm.  Only it's still coming up with the error still.

Has anyone else had any experience with this error and can point me in the 
right direction?

Cheers,
Tiang




FREMANTLE PORTS, 1 Cliff Street, Fremantle, Western Australia 6160. Telephone: 
+61 8 9430 3555
TO THE ADDRESSEE: We cannot guarantee the reliability, completeness or 
confidentiality of this Communication (this term includes all attachments).
IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED ADDRESSEE: Material in this communication is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. No confidentiality is lost or 
privilege waived by your receipt of it. Please notify us if you have received 
it.
VIRUS WARNING AND DISCLAIMER: Although we virus-scan all outgoing e-mail, we 
cannot guarantee that this Communication is free from viruses, Trojan horses, 
worms or anything else that may interfere with or damage the operation of your 
computer systems, and we accept no liability for any such interference or 
damage. You should check the Communication (and all other incoming e-mail) with 
current virus-scanning software.