I have this page in my application that contains a couple of grids and a few text boxes. Now these grids are getting populated from a hidden field in the page. My requirement is like the main page should have an "Update All" button where as these grids have their individual Update and delete options. Now when I delete or update anything from the Grids it should do a soft update or delete function and eventually when I hit "Update All" an actual commit statement should be executed.
I'm using a LinqDataSource with a RadGrid. When I Add a new Grid item and click insert the values are immediately saved to the database.Is there a way where they can be actually not put in the database until I give the command?
All I am trying to do is to make an update to an existing User and then save the changes to the database. I fooled around with different options and can see that I can make the change to the context during Page_Load, but it does not commit the changes to the Database.
I have a Default.aspx program that contains a Treeview with a SiteMapDataSource. I also have a web.sitemap loaded up with urls. When I run the deafult app I get the tree layout that matches the numbers of options but no text on any of the options to click.
I have a project to create a high traffic search engine similar to altavista.com. The windows .NET C# will be used for the project. I am looking for a good search engine database that can handle a very high load. I have taken a look at lucene and sql server 2008. I have read that lucene tends to get corrupt when the load is very high. So, I am considering sql server 2008 but I am uncertain sql server can handle a very high load over gigabytes of data.
The database will be given a chunk of data and needs to fetch similar data elsewhere in the table. it will act just the similar questions area on stackoverflow. It will need to search over millions of rows. Is sql server 2008 and lucene my only options
I need assistance on how to bind Radiobutton to database, so that whatever selection made in Radiobutton will appear in the database
I want to produce an online quiz, that will have the following fuctionality
1. it contain database with , ID, Questions, Option A, B,C, and D, Student Answer.
2.After forming the griedview in connection with the database, i form additonal colum to include Radiobutton where students are to choose the correct option.
3. I was able to configure the gridview which successfully show all the above document but the problem now is how to bind the selected option by students to the database so that i can know wether they choose the right answer or not. i wat the student answer appear in the colum named student answer in the database.
i shall be very grateful , if u can just give simple example that i can perform which shall be able to show the click on radiobutton in database not autopostback in textbox.
I had a DetailsView control for editing records in a Access 2003 database. I transfered the database to MS SQL 2008 and using the same code does not work - after clicking edit nothing happens (no error) and the record is not updated.
i've gridview and sqldatasource bind,i got 2 field in gridview start date and end date,actual problem : both dates coming in format -11/4/2010 12:00:00AMi want 11-04-2010
I have two databases. When I am using MS Visual Web Developer, I can drag the table onto the webpage and it gives me check boxes to Insert, Update, Delete,...When I do the exact thing using the other database, it only has check boxes forpaging, sorting and selection. What is the difference? I seem to have all teh same permissions in both databases.
i want to rollback the changes if something goes wrong either in the clients sit(internet connection failed in the time the sub is running) or in the servers side(if the server falls)is the sqltrasnsaction the properly solution??
Code: Dim thisConnection As New SqlConnection("server=(local)SQLEXPRESS;" & _ "integrated security=sspi;database=MyDatabase") ' SQL Delete Commands Dim sql As String = "DELETE FROM Employee " & _ "WHERE ID = 10" ' Create command [code]...
I have written several queries under one single transaction. When any of the query throws an error then the whole transaction should rollback. However, in some rare cases say 2% cases even after the error the next transaction is getting comitted.
note that all transaction processes (opening, committing and rollback) is done through .net.
I am using 64bit windows 2003 for data and application server. And website is configured for runapp32on64.
in sql server 2005, i have deleted row by mistake and now want to roolback them, i wrote a query is "delete tblmetric" nd pressed F5 now wanna to recover the rows
I am using more than one files to read and write to the server. Suppose during writing or reading any of files gets error the already stored files need to be rollback or removed from storing.So that the user agin try to write without error. Simply the all of the files need to be stored into the server without error, of error occurs to any of file none of files need to be read/write
Now, these two operations are done with two different connections (say con1 and con2). Both these connections are enlisted in the same TransactionScope.
Before the delete/insert operations the connections are opened and immediately closed.
So, now if the insert fails, then how is the delete rollbacked since con1 has been closed?
User amends an existing order. The order is complex - lots of related 'entities' (addresses, post options, suppliers, makes, models, various items etc). Across multiple http posts.
User wants to discard the changes.
I have an order entity and as the user is editing this I am making various changes to the entity associations e.g changing order.address, order.items.add(item)...
In a single post this is fine, but across posts I don't know how best store state. If I store the entities then I cannot save the changes as they are across different data contexts. I have read that it is bad practice to store the data context in the session state i.e. long-lived context. I can't save changes after each edit/post because I cannot roll-back (?). I really would like to work with the entities during the editing process rather than one big save at the end (taking UI settings and applying these in one chunk).
table 1 [Code].... Table 2 [Code].... my stored procedure [Code]....
when ever i m passing the wrong the value in second table while updating its not updating the table but the problem it is inserting the value in first table i want the whole trans should proceed if success if not rollback
I have a strange situation.An ASP.NET button click event causes an object in memory to be updated. The object was loaded from NHibernate via Refresh() during Page_Load, but at no time during the entire page life cycle is Commit() or Flush() called.At some point after the page's OnUnload step, the object and any changes made to it are automatically persisted to the database. I cannot see when or where or why this occurs.
I have 20 records in the datatable and i try to insert this records in a database, i want towrite begintransactions , and if all the records correct , i need to commit otherwise i need to rollback.how to do this?
i am using the transaction-per-request (session-in-view) pattern for an asp.net web application. I have a couple of points in the application where i want to Save an NHibernate managed entity and then do a couple of more inserts and updates using common sql. These inserts/updates depend on the ID that the NH saved entity will take.
The problem is that the generated id does not exist in the transactions' scope. If i force a flush/commit the id is persisted but if the inserts/updates fail i have to rollback but the flushed/committed entity will not. Currently I'm doing a manual insert for these cases but that is something i want to change. So, is there a way to execute the SQL statement (inside the already open transaction) after the Save() but without forcing a flush/commit?
EDIT: I'm adding a semi-pseudocode example, i got 4 wrong answers so i think people don't understand (how NHibernate works) At the Begin request i issue a
nhsession.BeginTransaction()
then at some point i do
FooClass fc = new FooClass("value"); nhsession.Save(fc); ITransaction trans = nhsession.Transaction; SqlCommand sc = new SqlCommand("some insert/update query that depends on fc's id", (SqlConnection)nhsession.Connection); sc.Parameters.Add("id", fc.Id); //NHibernate generates the id, note i'm using assigned/hi-lo so no round trip to the db takes place transaction.Enlist(sc); try { sc.ExecuteNonQuery(); } catch (SqlException ex){ transaction.RollBack(); nhsession.Close(); }
and at the end of the Request i issue a CommitTransaction() and nhsession.Close()
Now this will do absolutely nothing: the FooClass (fc) has not been flushed/commited to the database. The Save() operation that NH has done is up to that point in-memory. That means no sql command has been issued by nhibernate and that means that the SqlCommand (sc) that i fire afterwards will fail miserably as the id does not exist.
If i do a flush/commit between Save() and the SqlCommand the FooClass(fc) _cannot_be_rolled_back_ and that is a bad bad thing.Currently, for this to work i make vanila sql insert using an SqlCommand, and i want to change that. (Why? because i don't want to make vanilla inserts they are susceptible to errors due to schema/model changes, and i got the OR/M for that)
How? i want to notify NHibernate somehow to execute the SqlCommand to corresponds to the Save() insert (hell, it can do all the SqlCommands it has gathered) but without it commiting or flushing!.
Currently i'm also searching for the prepared sql statement that nhibernate produces when flushing/commiting a saved object. Maybe i can just take that string and run it in my SqlCommand that is enlisted in the Transaction.
I need to create a gridview to show in each row, some columns from the SQL Database, and in other columns I want to have text fields, buttons and DropDownLists!
This GridView is to display the users of the web application.
First columns are name, email, and other stuff that can be easly queried to the SQL database.
Then, I need to have a column with one text field, and some buttons, in the text field the AdminUser should be able to insert some text and then click in a button to change the email/pass from the user represented in that line.
The other field I need, is a DropDownList that shows by default the Role of the user of the row, but we can choose another role and apply it, with a button in the same cell!
If I create a code-Behind query and populate the GridView, I don't know how to insert textbox's, button's, DropDownList's
If I create the GridView with the wizard, I can had TemplateFields, but I don't know how to associate the query with the BoundFiels where should be the name/email of the users.
Other problem, is that, even If I get to construct my GridView with sucess, How can I reference the row? So I can apply the changes?
I've been looking into how best to do this and wisdom would be appreciated. For read only purposes, I've been happily using LINQ and binding it to a grid. For editing purposes, I've used the LinqDataSource control, enabled the Edit/Delete operations in the process, and I have a nice editable grid bound to some or all of the table's fields.Now I have a situation where I want to edit a few fields in table A, but there are various values in linked table B that I want to display in that grid too (no editing of those). So my query looks like the below. The fields in tblDupes (cleared, notes) are what I want to edit, but I'd like to display those tblVoucher ones.
var theDupes = from d in db.tblDupes where d.dupeGroup == Ref select new
[code]...
A similar but different question LINQDataSource - Query Multiple Tables? sent me looking at scott Guthrie's blog entry http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/09/07/linq-to-sql-part-9-using-a-custom-linq-expression-with-the-lt-asp-linqdatasource-gt-control.aspx, where he handles various events to have a LinqDataSource with a custom query across tables. This still seems aimed at explicitly designed classes though, even if the class has only a subset of the fields.
So my question is: is there an easy way to allow committing of the changes made to the anonymous collection (a changes.Submit type action), or just an easy way to 'display' fields from another table while not involving them in the updating?EDIT: Thinking more, it doesn't have to be anonymous really. I'd be happy to define a class to contain the elements in that query, since it won't change often. But, those elements would be across two tables, even though only one needs updating. Not sure if that suggests entity framework would be more suitable - I get the feeling it wouldn't - I don't want the whole 'model' always grouping the fields in this way.
