Editing is not all Mac-based for us happy, few Sony Pictures Digital users.
So, here I am actually trying to drink the Kool-Aid™ and I can’t find the cup! I am stepping away from writing it all in code and trying to inherit a control from, say an HTML Label control such that I am able to manipulate this control in the Visual Studio designer without building my own designer from the ground up.
I erroneously thought that I can just drop a Designer Attribute referring to the HTML Control Designer (or even the Intrinsic HTML Control Designer) and somehow Visual Studio would show me the appropriate Label-derived designer.
Are we forced to build our own designer for all controls we write? Is there any concept of “designer inheritance” addressed in ASP.NET 2.0? Please feel free to tell me that this question has been answered in your favorite Blog-style newsgroup so that I can find my answers there. Or it would be cool to answer a technical question here for a change.
I use Sage in FireFox to pick new posts. So this one was easy to find. Sounds like another reasonable guy trying to change the world one heart at a time---and I am not being sarcastic. We just need know what ancient forces we are up against.
Chris Sells and his homies won't admit it openly but Windows Forms 1.x is brittle. I was just remarking yesterday that the jump from ASP to ASP.NET was serious quantum leap. Going from a VB6 form to a Windows form is like skipping around a bit.
First of all, threading is the problem. Windows Forms 2.0 will take care of this problem (we hope) with the Background Worker thingy. However, I have moved out of Access forms and into Windows forms with reckless abandon.
ASP.NET applications are worth your time. They will not break your heart. Windows Forms are still toys. You can open a Windows Form designer and your controls can mysteriously vanish and then reappear after closing VS.NET. Let's see the next version.
9/9/2004 4:21:09 PM: Meta-Applications
Microsoft is so big that it develops software applications for its other software applications. It’s a self-join of monumental proportions. It’s quite a jump from some kid hacking together a small VB6 app’ or a tiny toy Access form.
Windows SharePoint Services, SharePoint Portal Server, Office Project Server and SQL Server
All of these mugs are now installed on one Windows 2003 server. After installing SP1 for WSS and SPS, I was able to run WSSWIZ.EXE that dumped some templates on SPS (including some Project Server web parts). This executable was a step defined in MS KB Article 840701 (“How to install SharePoint Portal Server 2003, Windows SharePoint Services, and Project Server 2003 on the same server”).
Now I thought I was being conservative when I installed SPS on top of MSDE but Office Project seems to require SQL Server (preferably with analysis services). Also, Project Server still uses ASP files so SPS has to be configured to allow this file type. And Window Server 2003 has to be configured as well. Both configurations reduce the level of security.
Those Phong-shaded cartoon drawings of happy perfect applications holding hands with other happy applications are quite annoying when the gritty complicated reality is faced. To make life easier I should have set up at least two virtual machines because Microsoft does not recommend running Office Project and SharePoint Portal servers on the same machine. But I can’t imagine having less problems running multiple, virtual, Windows 2003 servers on one machine.
Interoperability and backwards compatibility is starting to become a seriously heavy burden.
Did I miss the Toolbox of Xamlon controls in Visual Studio or was I supposed to make my own? I was under the mistaken assumption that controls that don't look like Windows forms controls would jump out at me.
Perhaps I was being too generous when I said that Xamlon would "compete" with Avalon. Let's ask, What would Xamlon do that Avalon cannot do (besides travel through time)?
Keskos wrote:in other words manickernel sounds more like Kaelan every day.
And do you have to be a dick to everyone, or is it optional?
We should not be offended by this use of language. Dick Cheney said worse in the hallowed halls of our nation.
...I did not notice any Microsoft employees on this thread. Hmm...
Sathyaish Chakravarthy wrote:I am not sure if I understand much of what you've said. My question is simple. Where can I find a woman who will talk to me and like me?
Your question is not simple but your response tells me that I should go and think of more scientific and antiseptic ways of expressing myself so I can further not be understood. I keep forgetting that I need to get that "golly," "gee whiz" vibe going...
Read. Parse. Explicitly reduce to the absurd. Do not skim and gloss and pessimistically guess because you might miss what you were looking for...
Step one is to divide the population of women you are attracted to into two groups: the women that implicitly/explicitly support patriarchy and the women who don't.
For the women who do support patriarchy, save your money because you will need to buy them. Bling. Bling, baby.
For the women who do not support patriarchy you will need develop the concept that women are human beings---just like you. So ask yourself, Would you like to be approached by a stranger at a movie theater? My answer to that question is, no.
There is the temptation to blame yourself for not having appropriate social access to adult women who posses all of their human rights. But you probably live in an industrial society and you probably are not a student of history so you deeply underestimate the power of urban alienation.
Most people who are authentically successful with female contact have relationships that are established by old-fashioned family ties. It is based on the same networking skills that will get your next good job---just a little closer to home.