Such an easy question

VS 2005 issue

Hi I have a batch file I would like to run - once I kick off a build event for a class library

If you look in project -> properties -> Compile -> Build Events

you can enter commands in 2 windows - pre build and post build

I entered

call S:\Securinfo.NET\Atlantis Release\slnAuthManager.root\slnAuthManager\Business Logic\bllAuthManager\inc.bat

And now all I get is exited with code 1

Any ideas people - please !!!

If you go to the bin (or bin\debug) directory after building the solution, you will see the bat file that Visual Studio creates from your build event.

Open a command line, navigate to that folder, and then type the bat file name at the prompt and it will execute. Any errors should display on the screen.

Suggestions to build Newsletter

Hi.

I want to build Newsletter to about 100 thousand user.

what is the best way to send that huge E-mails .

I think to use Thread.Sleep(500) after evry mail , is that good way , is there any more professional ways?

Good Evening Kojoh,

There are multiple was to do it, How I do it, is store the email addresses in a database, sql server 2005 but you can use the express version if you so choose, then you can either use sql to send the email(I don't think you can do this with the express version) but you can use asp.net to do it. You can just create a list and then send it via system.net.mail or if you have access to your own mail server, create a distribution list based on the addresses stored in the database. Totally up to you. Not sure your requirements or utilities at your disposure.

Joshua

thank's dearfolkertsj .

I don't ask how to send mail , I know how to do it . but my question is if I use to send thousands of mails one time it will hung the server.

Regards.

Indeed - the issue is how to send bulk emails.

There are lots of ways to achieve this safely. I find the simplest and easiest way is to use a bulk email component. The one I typically use for this isAspEmail (works with ASP and ASP.NET) as it has support for just about everything you can think of.

DearBSolveIT Thank's for your replay ,

I know the code and I have host server that support SMTP Server . I wl explain more:

I use like this code:

while (ReaderUsers.Read()) { MailAddress To =new MailAddress(ReaderUsers["UserMail"].ToString()); MailAddress From =new MailAddress("Email@.Email.com"); MailMessage MyMail =new MailMessage(From, To); MyMail.Subject ="Subject"; MyMail.Body ="the body"; SmtpClient smtp =new SmtpClient("my smtp Server"); smtp.Send(MyMail); }

This Reader contain a thousands of recored . if I send it like this I will make a problems in the server I gess. how can solve this problem , is it good done if I useSystem.Threading.Thread.Sleep() between E-Mails?

Hi Kojoh

I would suggest that you probably don't want to do that. I understand that you want to slow down the speed at which the emails are generated, but then you're also going to end up with a page that will take a LONG time to process... which you'll then have to cater for.

Better, as I mentioned, is to use a bulk email component. The one I mentioned uses it's own SMTP server, and handles it's own queue. However, it has 64 SMTP threads allowing it to send hundreds of emails a second.

If you don't have your own server, ask your hosting company if there is a bulk email capable component installed on the server that you can use. if they haven't got one, ask if they would consider installing the one I suggested.

BSolveIT:

If you don't have your own server, ask your hosting company if there is a bulk email capable component installed on the server that you can use. if they haven't got one, ask if they would consider installing the one I suggested.

Thank's alotBSolveIT.

my host need extra money to do that, now I look to do that by the code!! is there any suggestions ?.

up.

I strongly advise to switch to a host that has support for this, as either way you're current host is likely to be unhappy.

Support/Ticket System

Can anyone know where i can find a tutorial on how to build support/Ticket System using VB.NET and SQL

ThanksAnyone know where i can find a tutorial on how to build support/Ticket System using VB.NET and SQL

Thanks

Suppress keyboard, allow barcode scanner

I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
application using a barcode scanner.

I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
scanner.

Anyone got any ideas?

EdwardNope... you are probably out of luck, especially since it's a Web interface.
You would have to have some sort of client addin/component built and
installed but in the end even that may not help since the scanner simply
emulates a keyboard.

--
Curt Christianson
site: http://www.darkfalz.com
blog: http://blog.darkfalz.com

"teddysnips@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
> application using a barcode scanner.
> I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
> disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
> be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
> keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
> the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
> physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
> scanner.
> Anyone got any ideas?
> Edward
>
teddysnips@.hotmail.com wrote in news:1129216453.891262.133020
@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
> application using a barcode scanner.
> I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
> disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
> be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
> keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
> the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
> physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
> scanner.
> Anyone got any ideas?

With IE, you cannot disable ALL keystrokes anyways.

If there is a such a requirement, you might want to consider using a
winforms login page instead... and somehow tie it into your web app.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@.rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.

Newmarket Volvo Sucks! http://newmarketvolvo.tripod.com
you would need an write active/x control. you would then plug the scanner
into a seperate serial port (not the keyboard). the active/x control would
then poll the scanner's serial port for input, and raise an event on input
for client script to handle. you would use a hidden field that the client
script used to post the login id, so the keyboard would be disabled.

-- bruce (sqlwork.com)

<teddysnips@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129216453.891262.133020@.g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
> application using a barcode scanner.
> I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
> disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
> be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
> keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
> the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
> physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
> scanner.
> Anyone got any ideas?
> Edward
Bruce Barker wrote:
> you would need an write active/x control. you would then plug the scanner
> into a seperate serial port (not the keyboard). the active/x control would
> then poll the scanner's serial port for input, and raise an event on input
> for client script to handle. you would use a hidden field that the client
> script used to post the login id, so the keyboard would be disabled.
> -- bruce (sqlwork.com)

Thanks to you and to all other respondents. It's a fixed price
contract and we've agreed the work, so I'll just tell them to remove
the keyboard. That's the easiest solution, and the most foolproof
(until the scanner goes AWOL).

Edward

Suppress keyboard, allow barcode scanner

I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
application using a barcode scanner.
I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
scanner.
Anyone got any ideas?
EdwardNope... you are probably out of luck, especially since it's a Web interface.
You would have to have some sort of client addin/component built and
installed but in the end even that may not help since the scanner simply
emulates a keyboard.
Curt Christianson
site: http://www.darkfalz.com
blog: http://blog.darkfalz.com
"teddysnips@.hotmail.com" wrote:

> I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
> application using a barcode scanner.
> I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
> disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
> be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
> keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
> the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
> physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
> scanner.
> Anyone got any ideas?
> Edward
>
teddysnips@.hotmail.com wrote in news:1129216453.891262.133020
@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
> application using a barcode scanner.
> I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
> disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
> be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
> keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
> the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
> physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
> scanner.
> Anyone got any ideas?
With IE, you cannot disable ALL keystrokes anyways.
If there is a such a requirement, you might want to consider using a
winforms login page instead... and somehow tie it into your web app.
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@.rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
Newmarket Volvo Sucks! http://newmarketvolvo.tripod.com
you would need an write active/x control. you would then plug the scanner
into a seperate serial port (not the keyboard). the active/x control would
then poll the scanner's serial port for input, and raise an event on input
for client script to handle. you would use a hidden field that the client
script used to post the login id, so the keyboard would be disabled.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
<teddysnips@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129216453.891262.133020@.g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I posted yesterday about a project I'm involved in to build a login
> application using a barcode scanner.
> I've solved most of the problems, but one remains. The client want to
> disable keyboard input (except at some remote sites where there won't
> be a scanner). The session "knows" whether that site should be
> keyboard enabled, but unfortunately the output from the scanner is in
> the form of keypresses! So any attempt to capture and suppress
> physical keypresses in script cannot differentiate between keyboard and
> scanner.
> Anyone got any ideas?
> Edward
>
Bruce Barker wrote:
> you would need an write active/x control. you would then plug the scanner
> into a seperate serial port (not the keyboard). the active/x control would
> then poll the scanner's serial port for input, and raise an event on inpu
t
> for client script to handle. you would use a hidden field that the client
> script used to post the login id, so the keyboard would be disabled.
> -- bruce (sqlwork.com)
Thanks to you and to all other respondents. It's a fixed price
contract and we've agreed the work, so I'll just tell them to remove
the keyboard. That's the easiest solution, and the most foolproof
(until the scanner goes AWOL).
Edward

Survey: What do you name your User table?

Most of the sites that I build have to deal with security at some
point, and this means that somewhere in the database there needs to be
a list of Users.

The naming convention that I (and most everybody I've ever worked with
that cares about such things) use dictates that a table should be named
according to what it contains, and that this name should be singular.
So, Customer, User, Entry are all good, while Customers, Users, Entries
are not so good. Thus, nobody has to deal with Junior Dev Jimmy's
magic ID generation code that occasionally tries to bind a column to
"EntrieID".

The issue I keep running into is that "User" is essentially a reserved
word in ASP.NET, being a property of Page. Thus, I can't use it as the
ClassName for my DataObject that wraps the User table. Thus, I
probably shouldn't be naming the table "User", since every other
DataObject always is named after the table it represents.

I've tried going with "Login" to describe users, but this usually
crashes into somebody's Login.aspx Page object, and besides it's not
quite descriptive enough for my tastes.

That leaves us with "Users" (thus breaking our naming convention),
"tblUser" "UserTable" or "UserRecord" (which all look silly on the
url), "Individual" or "Dude" (which I've actually gone with in the
past).

I'm curious what other people have come up with to attack this problem.
I'm sure I'm not the only one running into it. Let me know what you
think!

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/because tables are sets, i (like the sqlserver dev group) always make them
pural, so my users table name is Users. in your case UserInfo is probably a
good name.

-- bruce (sqlwork.com)

"jasonkester" <jasonkester@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125699677.612465.206070@.g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Most of the sites that I build have to deal with security at some
> point, and this means that somewhere in the database there needs to be
> a list of Users.
> The naming convention that I (and most everybody I've ever worked with
> that cares about such things) use dictates that a table should be named
> according to what it contains, and that this name should be singular.
> So, Customer, User, Entry are all good, while Customers, Users, Entries
> are not so good. Thus, nobody has to deal with Junior Dev Jimmy's
> magic ID generation code that occasionally tries to bind a column to
> "EntrieID".
> The issue I keep running into is that "User" is essentially a reserved
> word in ASP.NET, being a property of Page. Thus, I can't use it as the
> ClassName for my DataObject that wraps the User table. Thus, I
> probably shouldn't be naming the table "User", since every other
> DataObject always is named after the table it represents.
> I've tried going with "Login" to describe users, but this usually
> crashes into somebody's Login.aspx Page object, and besides it's not
> quite descriptive enough for my tastes.
> That leaves us with "Users" (thus breaking our naming convention),
> "tblUser" "UserTable" or "UserRecord" (which all look silly on the
> url), "Individual" or "Dude" (which I've actually gone with in the
> past).
> I'm curious what other people have come up with to attack this problem.
> I'm sure I'm not the only one running into it. Let me know what you
> think!
>
> Jason Kester
> Expat Software Consulting Services
> http://www.expatsoftware.com/
UserProfile, UserRegistrationInfo, RegisteredUsers, UserCredentials...

Johm

Survey: What do you name your User table?

Most of the sites that I build have to deal with security at some
point, and this means that somewhere in the database there needs to be
a list of Users.
The naming convention that I (and most everybody I've ever worked with
that cares about such things) use dictates that a table should be named
according to what it contains, and that this name should be singular.
So, Customer, User, Entry are all good, while Customers, Users, Entries
are not so good. Thus, nobody has to deal with Junior Dev Jimmy's
magic ID generation code that occasionally tries to bind a column to
"EntrieID".
The issue I keep running into is that "User" is essentially a reserved
word in ASP.NET, being a property of Page. Thus, I can't use it as the
ClassName for my DataObject that wraps the User table. Thus, I
probably shouldn't be naming the table "User", since every other
DataObject always is named after the table it represents.
I've tried going with "Login" to describe users, but this usually
crashes into somebody's Login.aspx Page object, and besides it's not
quite descriptive enough for my tastes.
That leaves us with "Users" (thus breaking our naming convention),
"tblUser" "UserTable" or "UserRecord" (which all look silly on the
url), "Individual" or "Dude" (which I've actually gone with in the
past).
I'm curious what other people have come up with to attack this problem.
I'm sure I'm not the only one running into it. Let me know what you
think!
Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/because tables are sets, i (like the sqlserver dev group) always make them
pural, so my users table name is Users. in your case UserInfo is probably a
good name.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
"jasonkester" <jasonkester@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125699677.612465.206070@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Most of the sites that I build have to deal with security at some
> point, and this means that somewhere in the database there needs to be
> a list of Users.
> The naming convention that I (and most everybody I've ever worked with
> that cares about such things) use dictates that a table should be named
> according to what it contains, and that this name should be singular.
> So, Customer, User, Entry are all good, while Customers, Users, Entries
> are not so good. Thus, nobody has to deal with Junior Dev Jimmy's
> magic ID generation code that occasionally tries to bind a column to
> "EntrieID".
> The issue I keep running into is that "User" is essentially a reserved
> word in ASP.NET, being a property of Page. Thus, I can't use it as the
> ClassName for my DataObject that wraps the User table. Thus, I
> probably shouldn't be naming the table "User", since every other
> DataObject always is named after the table it represents.
> I've tried going with "Login" to describe users, but this usually
> crashes into somebody's Login.aspx Page object, and besides it's not
> quite descriptive enough for my tastes.
> That leaves us with "Users" (thus breaking our naming convention),
> "tblUser" "UserTable" or "UserRecord" (which all look silly on the
> url), "Individual" or "Dude" (which I've actually gone with in the
> past).
> I'm curious what other people have come up with to attack this problem.
> I'm sure I'm not the only one running into it. Let me know what you
> think!
>
> Jason Kester
> Expat Software Consulting Services
> http://www.expatsoftware.com/
>
UserProfile, UserRegistrationInfo, RegisteredUsers, UserCredentials...
Johm