web services aren't just only to SOAP. You can transport via HTTP and FTP The good thing about web services is any language can tie into them using DISCO and hook to a wsdl. But there a huge security risk, hackers can easily get past firewalls since firewalls dont guard agains web services. tpyically though becuase I heard some are sifting for unusual data. But send jsp http requests to update data seems kind of old-world since web services are easier and less code means easier maintainable. Which in your employers eyes means more product for less money. If you want it to fly the keyword is "real world experiences saving MONEY" do some research and make a 3 page report. but youll create an enemny. be forwarned. I'm not an expert yet, but I play one at work. Yeah and here too.

Yes, add something like this just below XML declaration: <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="simple.xsl"?> It works fine in IE, but not sure about other browsers Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer

If you're using the .NET XML classes, then use XmlNode::ReadElementString. Cheers, Tom Archer Inside C#, Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework It's better to listen to others than to speak, because I already know what I'm going to say anyway. - friend of Jörgen Sigvardsson

You'll have to wait for .NET ver2 for anonymous delegates, in the meantime you will have to template each of them, or maybe you can use Reflection.Emit to build delegates dynamically, but that a bit difficult. another suggestion is to go the COntrol.Invoke way, not sure if you can define a delegate with a "params" parameter. Hey leppie! Your "proof" seems brilliant and absurd at the same time. - Vikram Punathambekar 28 Apr '03

I would indeed suggest .Net and especially System.Remoting Many sites have working implementations beyond the ones found in .Net framework doc : - mastercsharp.com - dotnet247.com - dotnetjunkies - ... Good luck! Let's swallow a small raisin.

Oops :-O it should have been configurationhandler not section :) Correct link[^] James "Java is free - and worth every penny." - Christian Graus

a couple of points... 1. you are using a global sqlconnection....this could hog resources...i'd at least try to close it after every use and reopen it before every use...the datagrid is good at displaying disconnected data (that's that the System.Data.DataSet object is) 2. make sure you aren't calling DataBind() in your page_load event every time, or else it'll grab the data right from sql again should be something like public void page_load() { if (!Page.IsPostBack) { Page.DataBind(); } else { //do nothing...page was posted back, and data will remain in datagrid unless changed in another function } } hope this helps :eek: michael griffith -------------------- mgriffith@lauren.com mdg12@po.cwru.edu

Using DataGrid Look at the Checkboxes and TextBoxes section.

Steve Severance wrote: ok...Thanks. Is there a way that I can tell? Yes, not sure if you have tried this, but when you load up SQL Server Enterprise Manager you can run stored procedures from within the Query Analyser tool. Keep in mind that your stored procedure may return results, it may even return multiple results, however the ExecuteScalar() method will only extract the first column which could be null in your case. You may wish to consider using the ExecuteReader() method or changing your stored procedure to check for null values. Nick Parker

You have two options for server-activated objects: Singleton and SingleCall. In the case of Singleton, the remoting will only create one instance and every client-call will be routed to the same instance. In case of SingleCall, every client-call will be served by a completely new instance of your server object. Rude :-O

OK. Here's my take on the web services architecture thing. All a web service (ws) really is, is a class that happens to be exposed to the web. Ideally, in my opinion, the ws should just wrap an existing class. So, ws X would wrap (and expose) class X. My reasoning behind this is because of 2 primary factors: performance and reusability. Performance - if ws X is the sole provider of functionality X then another class on the same machine will have to take the performance hit of calling a ws (marshalling, HTTP, address resolution, etc...). Reusability - follows on from previous point. Also, I view a ws to be a requirement of a class and not necessary a point of functionality itself. The thing to remember is that a ws is just a class. So, if your class/ws is too large, then chances are that it hasn't been factorised properly. One school of thought (Bruce Eckell, I think) is to design your class on a small flash card. The premise being that if you require more physical space on the card to jot down member and attribute names then you should use another card/class. I think this is a pretty nice idea! Thanks, Bruce. An idea would be to remove the concept of web services from your initial design and rather give a special attribute to the classes that need to be exposed to the web/intranet. This can later be enhanced into a decorator class of soughts. Your idea of having ASP.NET as your front end that consumes web services is a valid design. What would the reason be to expose web services though? If your reason is to expose a subset of functionality for other apps to use, then cool. The architecture I'm working on at the moment uses ASP.NET pages (very light) that consume ws as per your idea. There was a very specific reason for it though. The entire backend (ws included) will be migrated to a J2EE & ws system in a few years time and we wanted to prevent a[nother] rewrite for that. As far as COM+ is concerned: COM+/MTS no longer gives you the reduction in object creation time that it would do for pure COM components, so that's minus 1 point. Hopefully, this will change with COM+ 2 (?) in the .NET servers. The reasons that COM+ might be useful in a .NET world is for things like transactions. Will this be a requirement for your application? If you are keen to continue this offline, then either MSN Messenger/mail me at simon_stewart@hotmail.com. Cheers, Simon "Sign up for a chance to be among the first to experienc

Steve Severance wrote: "An object reference is required for the nonstatic field, method, or property 'Pharmacy.Global.sqlConnection' This error leads me to believe that sqlConnection is not a static field of the global.asax, the quick fix is to make it a static field (public static SqlConnection sqlConnection) HTH, James Simplicity Rules!

What About use, text fields, with any detereminated struct? Regards Carlos Antollini. www.wanakostudios.com Sonork ID 100.10529 cantollini

You've got the right idea, but you've got bugs in both your interfaces in your imnplementations. The implementation bug is what crashes it. Sorry, can't help without _full_ definition. The interface bug is that a class that is intended to be inherited from, especially if it contains data (!), should (almost) always have a virtual destructor. To give you a hint: Your code is probably overwriting some memory it doesn't own.

Thanks for all your help. I have a general question about stack corruption. I can't seem to find much information on it anywhere. Generally how is this caused? I think its because to much data is on the stack. Is this correct? How can I avoid this in the future? Thank you. Steve Not all who wander are lost...

int Rows, Cols;//I already have the vales for these char Board[100][50]; BuildBoard((char **)Board,Rows,Cols); I need to be able to do this without using the typecast and without making Board a char *. Thanks. Steve Not all who wander are lost...