In .NET 1.0, the DataGrid control was the primary Windows Forms control for presenting tabular data. Even though that control had a lot of capability and could present basic tabular data well, it was fairly difficult to customize many aspects of the control. Additionally, the DataGrid control didn’t expose enough information to the programmer about the user interactions with the grid and changes occurring in the grid due to programmatic modifications of the data or formatting. Due to these factors and a large number of new features that customers requested, the Windows Client team at Microsoft decided to introduce a replacement control for the DataGrid in .NET 2.0. That new control, the DataGridView control, is the focus of this chapter.
Presenting Data with the DataGridView Control in .NET 2.0
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think what’s a lot more exciting is the flexibility XAML offers for stuff like this.
Looking through a newsfeed I subscribe to, 2 recent posts touch on something similar:
http://blogs.msdn.com/okoboji/archive/2006/02/23/538340.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/okoboji/archive/2006/03/02/542274.aspx
What’s really cool is the ability to do data binding on just about any XAML object. Bind a static label’s text value to some variable in your code if you want. It’s very powerful and very flexible. It’s simply an awesome platform.
Hey I read the documents and then did a little search on XAML. This appears to be a very interesting way to use XSLT to transform XML data sources into XAML documents and in displaying beautiful UI. Though it will take some time for me to learn and use this technology, as of now I am happy using DataGrid and with increased functionality in .Net 2.0 — Data grid is the way to go for designing UI for database applications.
What I like the most is the extensive flexibility, even cell wide.
Thang God for this article, I though the best .NET have for tabular data was the pathetic datagrid.
i thought .NET 1.0 set the ‘gold standard’ :o)
after struggling with the crap datagrid control i’m glad to see it wasn’t just me.
anyway – the company i did work for bet the farm on MS and went bust because of it so i don’t have to work with .NET currently.
oh – hang on – i did recently. needed to create a code sample.
i needed ASP.NET to upload a file over FTP.
.NET 1.0 can’t do it – i used the command line FTP in the end.
.NET 2.0 looks like it can’t do it – but it’s so over complicated and confusing that it’s not worth it cos it’ll probably go wrong.
and don’t forget – .NET is not truly cross-browser complatible.
check into ‘SmartNavigation’. It’s a vital feature RE repositioning the page to make a form act like an application if you have scrolled down.
and it’s IE only.
when i first looked into .NET (and read the whole wrox book) i thought – hey, this ain’t bad.
but checking further into it shows that the old adage is still right – you can *always* rely on MS to let you down.
in otherwords – .NET is the usual overbloated, overhyped, overdocumented, missing the basics type of MS software.
All You have to do is establish a TCP connection and then send ftp commands through it. Its pretty simple. FTP is all plain text commands, I made a mail check applet for someone not too long ago and pop was the same thing. Just open up the stream and shoot some text through it.
That would require the GP to actually, you know, code something longer than 6 lines
Sorry man, but you’re a bit clueless. If you’re using VB.NET, you can literally upload or download a file using the MY namespace in one line of code. Or if you use the ftpwebrequest/webrequest object, and a couple of streams/readers you can do it in like 8 lines of code.
RE: the datagrid
Granted the 1.0 datagrid was a bit messy, but the 2.0 GridView control is leaps and bounds better and easier to understand. Still has some quirky things but hey, that’s where you can build your own to fit your needs..right?
Seems to me, that you may have lost focus. .NET is a huge framework that takes time and, yes..’practice’..to master.
Give it another shot.
compare it to PHP and you’ll see exactly what i mean.
besides ftpwebrequest is .NET 2.0 only- and the example code needed to be pased on to developers – i didn’t want to expect them to upgrade to .NET 2.0
<quote>
FtpWebRequest Class
Note: This class is new in the .NET Framework version 2.0.
Implements a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) client.
</quote>
i put in the time and practice – but i need to get things done – not spend my life trying to workaround an overcomplicated technology – therefore i use PHP.
i did mention it was ASP.NET not VB.NET – but thanks for the pointer. this is from the MS website and even there they admit the problem.
<quote>
Why My?
One of the biggest issues that programmers run into is the sheer breadth of .NET, which makes finding the best class for a particular task quite daunting. I have read many newsgroup postings from developers working very hard to call a Win32® API function from their Visual Basic .NET or C# code, when that exact function already exists in .NET. Why are they trying to call the API? They didn’t find, notice, or perhaps understand how they could use existing parts of the Framework.
</quote>
check out http://www.php.net – concise, elegant etc.
in future i’m not going to respond to this astroturfing in detail cos it’s a waste of time.
PHP is about as elegant a solution as perl for writing anything more than a BBS site. There is a reason why virtually all (web based) IT projects are written in either A) Java or B).Net, first and foremost being that both of these frameworks are supported professionally by their respective companies. Nothing mission critical would _ever_ be written in PHP, so amongst IT professionals it’s pretty much a joke. It has its place, but IT definitely isn’t one of them, so trying to compare PHP to .Net is a farce.
I agree that .Net’s breadth is large, but with that breadth you get much more power and control over the software you write. It only took me about a month to ramp up when .Net came out about 5 years ago.
I referenced 2.0 as a response to:
<<.NET 2.0 looks like it can’t do it – but it’s so over complicated and confusing that it’s not worth it cos it’ll probably go wrong. >>
I can use VB.NET or C# in ASP.NET. ASP.NET is an environment..
The FTPWebRequest inherits the webrequest base class..so, what’s your point again?
All you have to do is spend a little time searching.. like.. 15 seconds:
http://www.gotdotnet.com/Community/UserSamples/Details.aspx?SampleG…
http://www.aspsimply.com/vbnet/DotNetFTP.aspx
Sounds to me like the entire time you were involved in .NET you were just looking for an out so you can say “it’s crap”. If you enjoy Spaghetti code, then that’s your prerogative.
err… can’t you read?
FTPWebRequest is .NET 2.0 only – and we can’t expect clients to upgrade .NET just to be able to upload a file over FTP.
look – do something else other than this MS astroturf stuff – you’re wasting your life really – is money that important – what about pride, integrity etc?
FtpWebRequest INHERITS FROM WebRequest which is part of 1.x you stooge. So are io.stream and io.streamreader.. are you thick or what?
besides, the links I posted are for 1.x..
It’s not about pride or integrity, it’s about understanding the framework which you OBVIOUSLY do not and I’d venture to say that OOP is too much for you as well.
Please, take the time to learn about that which you speak of.
interesting – i don’t think you can read – i’ll try again – this is a quote from MS’s site
<quote>
FtpWebRequest Class
Note: This class is new in the .NET Framework version 2.0.
Implements a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) client.
</quote>
the bit that says ‘version 2.0’ is the key bit i feel.
now if you’re saying that there’s some hidden away inheritance blah, blah, yawn it proves my point.
.NET is bloatware.
anyway – doesn’t matter – the company tried to move to MS – nothing worked properly – and they went bust.
all current work is in PHP.
i’ll bet that .NET isn’t around in five years.
It’s no wonder they went bust..
p.s. .NET has been around in some form for 5 years + already.
Now this one is price-less.. PRICE-LESS!!!
<< now if you’re saying that there’s some hidden away inheritance blah, blah… .NET is bloatware. >>
Dude, you’ve just single-handedly proved to everyone reading this thread that you are completely clue-less. Please stop building applications.
“anyway – doesn’t matter – the company tried to move to MS – nothing worked properly – and they went bust.”
Sounds like the problem was more than likely somewhere between the chair and the computer.
the bit that says ‘version 2.0’ is the key bit i feel.
now if you’re saying that there’s some hidden away inheritance blah, blah, yawn it proves my point.
.NET is bloatware.
I think you missed what he was saying. He was providing you with 1.x compliant classes that provide the functionality that you need.
All he was saying about FtpWebRequest is that it is derived from WebRequest, which would imply that most of the needed functionality is there, you just might have to write a little code to get the results you want. That shouldn’t be a problem, I mean thats your JOB right ?
anyway – doesn’t matter – the company tried to move to MS – nothing worked properly – and they went bust.
PEBkAC
i’ll bet that .NET isn’t around in five years.
The company I work for has had great results from .net and we are moving new development to v2.0 of the framework.
I’m thinking that the likely scenario is that companies like the one for which you work won’t be around in 5 years as there are a lot of us who are developing and deploying with the framework while being profitable.
i’ll admit you MS astroturf boys are good for the occasional laugh.
everybody who’s any good knows how bad MS is at software and you lot just prove it again and again.
first off – i did a tiny amount of work for the company which went bust – we would have recommended they stick with the unix servers which had served them flawlessly for years – but you know the average manager eh?
i thought you might try to say it was my fault – oh – you were so smart!
funny really – once the company’s IT staff had been told that a main unix dialler which was handling thousands of calls had crashed – and the support staff looked like rabbits caught in headlights – didn’t know what to do – never happened before, ever.
but then they realised that they’d been told wrong – it was a windows server handling some email – and they relaxed. cos it crashed all the time they just reset it.
then the managers announced that they’d bought a whole new telecoms system based on windows. not funny, 200 odd staff lost their jobs on the day they were due to be paid.
of course i could write a little more code to get the FTP working – but this is the point you boys struggle to understand.
good code is about writing less code – it’s called being elegant – and it should start with the language.
the more layers of crap that get added on then the more likely it will go wrong.
on top of which the clients budgets aren’t infinite.
here – i can write a solution in a short time which will save you money.
or i can slog away for days getting this .NET stuff to possibly work – after all – i’m a programmer – that’s my JOB right? sure you’re happy to fund me for ever.
nope – course not, the cheaper solution will be preferred.
and i agree PHP isn’t really the equivalent of .NET – java probably does that better. but although i did C++ at college 12 years ago and then spent years working on 4GL stuff i work on smaller projects for small companies now – and PHP provides decent web apps if used well.
besides .NET is so unreliable. we installed visual studio on to a machine once and it broke .NET – stopped the portal application from working. certain things would only be feasible if using visual studio which meant bloated code, moving the application was a pain, etc etc etc.
and – SmartNavigation is IE only – which since they were trying to get the users onto firefox due to security issues etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, yawn.
now to the serious point – natural selection will mean the survival of the fittest languages and platforms – i wouldn’t bet my future on .NET – besides it’s too depressing to work with such inelegant, bloatware.
and put it this way – if you were in a bad way and on a hospital bed (wouldn’t wish it – just using an example, programming ain’t that serious) and you had to choose between a machine running unix and one running MS – let’s face it – your hand would point to the unix box so fast it would be a blur.
anyway – bored now – i’ll leave you astroturf boys to it – remember though – we see right through you.
you can post away but it’s only occasionally that one of us will bother to respond if we need a distraction.
i’ll admit you MS astroturf boys are good for the occasional laugh.
everybody who’s any good knows how bad MS is at software and you lot just prove it again and again.
Thats why its deployed in companies everywhere eh ?
btw I don’t astrosurf for MS, but I’d love to get paid to argue with morons like you on the web. That would be a nice job.
first off – i did a tiny amount of work for the company which went bust – we would have recommended they stick with the unix servers which had served them flawlessly for years – but you know the average manager eh?
Well I’m assuming they have managers that used to work with the systems ? I mean I have no idea about the fly by night outfit you were with but where I work the people making IT decisions are IN IT.
i thought you might try to say it was my fault – oh – you were so smart!
No so much your fault, more like a lack of even looking for an answer is what I’m thinking.
of course i could write a little more code to get the FTP working – but this is the point you boys struggle to understand.
good code is about writing less code – it’s called being elegant – and it should start with the language.
Uh so if its already in the framework, its bloated, but if you have to write it yourself then its not an elegant language. Got it.
the more layers of crap that get added on then the more likely it will go wrong.
WTF were you just talking about ? So now we are back to “no it should not be included” ???
or i can slog away for days getting this .NET stuff to possibly work – after all – i’m a programmer – that’s my JOB right? sure you’re happy to fund me for ever.
No I would not fund you forever, hell I think after you missed your first milestone I’d fire your ass.
certain things would only be feasible if using visual studio which meant bloated code, moving the application was a pain, etc etc etc.
Ok the only way you had a deployment issue is if you had a ton of COM interops going and had to support legacy COM registration via the registry. If you were using a pure .net solution deployment means copying over the application folder if the framework is already on the machine.
Otherwise you can easily check for the framework and bootstrap it via an MSI deployment package.
I think you not only do NOT KNOW WTF you are doing, but i also question whether you even develop software.
and you had to choose between a machine running unix and one running MS – let’s face it – your hand would point to the unix box so fast it would be a blur.
Where I work we have UNIX (AIX, HP/UX, Solaris and debian linux) and yes we have a support group for them because *gasp* sometimes they stop working!
anyway – bored now – i’ll leave you astroturf boys to it – remember though – we see right through you.
Its ok we have your number. You likely aren’t a developer, if you are, then you are surely screwing companies out of hard earned cash as you stumble through projects without knowing the basics.
I totally understand. I fire people like you every week.
However, I think this was an exercise in futility
…here’s your sign.