I want to use Context.Items to store some info of a User Control like:
Context.Items["Data"] = 5;
I want to know, Is Context.Items is for each request or it is global for the application?
First of all, I am creating a something like a client/server solution using a standard ASP.NET website - I do know this method is not adviced, and most people would love to scream "COMET!" or "HTML5 Sockets!" - but please don't ;-) !
What I am doing...
I am creating an MMORPG on a website.
I have several clients whom need to be in contact at the same time. This is done by a global object in the Application scope.
My problem
I need to invoke an event to several clients. For instance, when an attack has been performed, I need to update some graphics. The attack logic is resolved in the global object, but each of the clients has to respond to this.
Right now I do the following:
fightTrace.Reciever.InvokeMoveEnded(this);
fightTrace.FiredBy.InvokeMoveEnded(this);
(This is a kind of observer pattern)
What now happends is a race condition. The one who loads the page_load event will get both of these events, and the one who is not running them, will experience no changes in the UI.
So what is it I really want?
What I really need is some genuine and nice way to create an observer pattern through the application state. I need to send an event out to every "listener" which is in this case is a client, and then do some update.
I have an ASP.NET app that logs Audit reports using nHibernate's IPreUpdateListener. In order to set the current user in the Listener events, I was using System.Security.Principal.WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent(). This works fine when debugging on my machine, but when I move it to the staging server, I'm getting the ASP.NET process credentials, not the requesting user.
In the ASP.NET page, I can use Request.LogonUserIdentity (which works fine since I'm using integrated authentication), but how do I reference this user directly without having to pass it directly to my event? I don't want to have to pass this info through the pipeline because it really doesn't belong in the intermediate events/calls.
How should one handle the situation where you may need to filter by a group of users.
Here is the scenario.
I have an administrator role in my company. I should be able to see all the data belonging to me plus all the other users who I have control over.
A plain old user however should only be able to access their own data.
If you are writing regular sql statements then you can have a security table with every user and who they have access too but i'm not sure how to handle this situation in the OO and ORM world.
Any one dealt with this scenario in a web application using an ORM?
I am looking for differences between those 3 ways of using static class in asp.net application scope.
Will all of these point to the same class?
Which one is preferable >object< defined declaratively inside global.asax or static class ?
examples:
<object runat="server" scope="application" class="classname" ID="objID"></object>
VS
public static class classname {}
VS
Application("a") = new classname();
want to make sure I am not assuming something foolish here, when implementing the singleton pattern in an ASP .Net web application the static variable scope is only for the current user session, right? If a second user is accessing the site it is a different memory scope...?
View 4 RepliesI want to initiate a class for each user at the start of the user's session so that a single class can be used throughout the user's session. I checked out this post but I'm not sure where I should be placing this Sessionhandler class. Inside global.asax? How do I go about accomplishing this?
View 2 RepliesI need to access some variables in a page in web application. The scope of variables is just in that specific page.
which one is the solution ? Session or ViewState ? or any better solution ?
Private Property UserId() As Integer
Get
If Not ViewState("UserId") Is Nothing Then[code]....
And also Is ViewState custom per user?
I have a multiple database operation, Have three tables (MSsql) and need to delete one row in each table in one operation, one after another. (Three functions, three rows of code). Everything is working as it should be, recently I was advised to use a transaction scope, which should guarantee the safety of deletion from all 3 tables together.
Here is my new code:
[Code]....
Locally all worked just fine, the transaction scope worked well, but when I have uploaded my application to my hosting server, I got an error of: The partner transaction manager has disabled its support for remote/network transactions. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8004D025).I talked with the host support, they tried to do something, then I got this error: Access is denied. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80070005 (E_ACCESSDENIED)).
After a 2 days, They have contacted me, they said it is not possible to disable some restriction, that will allow an access to this operation, because I'm using shared hosting, and I need to upgrade my plan to VPS. VPS is a very expensive for me, and I can't afford it, What I'm looking is a some similar way of doing the same operation as transaction scope do, that may work at my hosting, At least I would like to try something else. Is there any additional way for the transaction scope?
In this case I have a system where a user logs in, they get a dashboard and they can see all their related projects. The user can click on the project and open it. (ie /View/79) The problem the user can also just type /View/68 which they are not supposed to be able to view.
Obviously I am aware of how to filter my data, but this application has many many lists of data and it all needs to be scoped to data that user has been allowed to see. I can insert a plethora of joins and wheres in all my queries but.. it's a lot of work and a bit convoluted.So I was wondering what strategies other had used for filtering data based on the user scope.One approach I was thinking of was to extend my user-role-permission model so "permissions" could be assigned to various entitites (like projects). This way, rather than doing a series of joins etc to see confirm a user has been assigned to a project, my join is just onto the EntityPermission table to confirm the user has PermissionX (like: CanView) on that entity. I could either maintain a seperate M2M table for each entity i need to restrict or something a bit more general (but without referential integrity).
Quick question: Is there a "per-user" data storage object (similar to Session) that I can store data in the global scope (similar to HttpRuntime.Cache)? Almost as if Session and HttpRuntime.Cache had a baby.
Full Background: I have a ASP.NET website that was originally written for a single thread. Now I changed it so that certain actions will spawn a background thread and the browser polls a service to get status updates.
The problem I am having with this is that certain pieces of data are stored into the HttpContext.Session[] object (membership authentication token, for example). These pieces of data need to be unique to each user and accessible to the background thread. Session is not available to the background thread.
I am aware of HttpRuntime.Cache but that would require micromanagement to segment out the users and to expire it at the same time the session is expired. Session, on the other hand, automatically expires this things at the right times that I want it too and is already used by things like the SqlMembershipProvider.
My question is, is there something that behaves similar to the Session but exists in the global scope?
I want to declare a variable in such a way that I can access that particular variable and its value in all the asp pages in the project. Can anyone tell me how to declare a variable in C# such that it has project-wide scope?
View 8 RepliesTrying to troubleshoot a questionable plugin a client is experiencing issues with in production, and one possible issue I see is the fact that they're sending SMTP synchronously from within our heavily-transacted C# web application. In the past I believe I've read or been told that sending SMTP synchronously from within a transaction is a precarious bet, but I can't seem to find anything to back it up that I can present to the client's dev team.
View 1 RepliesI always got the error below when i load my report.i cannot get it since i have already added the field on my data set.{"The Value expression for the textbox ‘textbox22’ refers to the field ‘isTransfer’. Report item expressions can only refer to fields within the current data set scope or, if inside an aggregate, the specified data set scope."}
View 7 Repliesjust reading about using transaction scrope, previously I am used to making transactions inside a single DB class like
try
{
con.Open();
tran = con.BeginTransaction();[code]...
Which one is the recommended coding practice and why ? Is using a Transaction Scope safe ? Is it the latest way to do things ? I am confused about both methods.
I have an SQL Server table named "Fields" with an autoincrement identity column "FieldID" as the primary key, an nchar column "Phrase" that textbox entries are to be stored in from a web page, and another column that is defaulted to null. The following is the recommended example on how to use Scope_Identity() to get a newly inserted table row identity value:
//C#
string query = "Insert Into Categories (CategoryName) Values (@CategoryName);" +
"Select Scope_Identity()";
int ID;
string connect = @"Server=.SQLExpress;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|Northwind.mdf;" +
"Database=Northwind;Trusted_Connection=Yes;";
using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connect))
{
using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(query, conn))
{
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@CategoryName", Category.Text);
conn.Open();
ID = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar();
}
}
Obviously, this example uses a Categories Table in a Northwind database, which I do not have. So I am confused by how to adapt this example for my application. The following is my data context:
DataClassesDataContext db = new DataClassesDataContext();
Could you explain how I can adapt the example for my "Fields" table in my "EFMDB" database?
We're using ASP.NET and IIS 6.0. I realise that the definitions of applications, websites and virtual directories are ill-defined in IIS 6, and changed a lot in IIS 7. However, I'm stuck with IIS 6.0 for now.
We have a single web site defined in IIS, and a number of separate sub-sites in Virtual Directories.
The scheme looks like this:-
[URL]
[URL]
site1, site2, ... are virtual directories in IIS 6.0, under the "Default Web Site".
I need to use ASP.NET sessions and forms authentication in most of these sites, and I don't want them to share authentication data or session information at all.
Both the mechanisms currently depend on cookies. However, the cookies created by default use the same name, and have a path of "/" in the browser, meaning the sites' cookies will clash with each other.
Without changing the default name for each cookie, how can I enforce separation between my sub-sites? Do I need to change the virtual directories for IIS 6 "Applications"? Or is there some way in code to enforce a more limited scope for the cookies?
I have a listview in which I have a dropdownlist that will be repeated about 8 times. In the itemdatabound event of this listview, I fill the dropdownlist of that particular row with data. I obtain this data by using a linq query. It gets me an anonymous type in return:
[Code]....
The problem with this code is that I fire a query to the database everytime the itemdataboundevent is called. What I want to do is to fire the query only once, and have it available at page scope so I can reference it in the itemdatabound event. How can I get it like that?
I've sp :
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.FileUpload (
@Filename nvarchar(250),
@FilePath nvarchar(250),
@IDPersonne BigInt,
@FileId int OUTPUT
[Code] ....
Everything works fine like this but i would like use the parameter output to do this when i want named the upload file like this :
 cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@FileName", Request.QueryString["IDP"] + p + "_" + filename);
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@FilePath", "Files/" + Request.QueryString["IDP"]
+ p + "_" + filename);
How to do this ?
We are using membership provider for LDAP authentication. It is working as it should.
But what all configuration settings I have to do so that
all the future requests to this application run under the security context of the Logged in user account not through the some default user set in IIS.
We need to have this working because all the permissions on the database are based on the logged in user.
We are using form authentication for LDAP authentication. And having impersonation = true in web.config.
how to solve the problem? the error is on the return line and my code is
[Code]....
I have a bigger ASP.NET based webapplication, which is structured into subwebs (as described on [URL]How can I share user specific information (user credentials, other informations) between these subwebs? The point is that the subwebs have all their own virtual directories and therefore different sessions. Are there other possibilities besides cookies to have a shared (user/browser session based) memory?
View 1 RepliesWhat are the differences between Membership.GetUser() and Context.User, and which is recommended for use in getting information about the current user?
View 2 Replieshow to differentiate whether a managed library is running in the context of asp.net application or in a executable?
View 2 RepliesAfter setting the auth cookie using
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie("myusername", False)
server.transfer("somepage.aspx") to open a web page.
Context.User.Identity.Name is found to be empty
But if I use
Response.Redirect("somepage.aspx")
Context.User.Identity.Name provides correct result.
I am aware of the differences between Response.Redirect and server.transfer. But exactly what is the reason behind this particular behaviour ?