notflipmo posted:

C# + .NET 3.5

Learn me some XML please

config.xml:

code:

<config>
	<limit>13312</limit>
	<interval>20</interval>
	<process>utorrent.exe</process>
	<process>dc++.exe</process>
</config>

Basically I would like to write readConfiguration(), which reads the file config.xml
and saves the limit and interval values to ints, and the process values to any suitable storeage class, most likely a string array since I don't expect more than a few process entries.

I figured it would be fun to use an XML configuration file in this project just to have used .NETs mechanisms for XML. But amongst XmlDocuments, XmlReaders, XmlElements, XmlNodes, my brain seems to have melted and I can't seem to grasp it.
I now feel exceedingly dense, after googling all day long and understanding very little

code:

        private void readConfiguration()
        {
            XmlDocument xd = new XmlDocument();
            xd.Load("config.xml");


        }

Beyond this, I haven't been able to make any sense of it all...

notflipmo posted:

Learn me some XML please

uXs posted:

XmlSerializer. Very easy to do. You just put some attributes on a class, give the command to deserialize, and the file gets read and put into an object where you can do whatever.

ray2k posted:

Having said all that, getting to and from xml and the object instances is making a couple calls to XmlSerializer.Deserialize/Serialize and writing/reading from a Stream of your creation.

ray2k posted:

Because I'm a golden god...

ray2k posted:

and for collections as far as I know they have to be in a sub-element. So

code:

<process>utorrent.exe</process>
<process>dc++.exe</process>

Would likely have to be

code:

<processes>
     <process>utorrent.exe</process>
     <process>dc++.exe</process>
</processes>

To get full serialization support.

biznatchio posted:

biznatchio posted:

In other words, replace your Processes property definition from your example with this instead:

code:

        [XmlElement("process"), typeof(string)]
        public List<string> Processes 
        {
            get { return _processes; }
        }

notflipmo posted:

Am I entirely mistaken if I assume the above contains a typing error and should be like so:

biznatchio posted:

Undoubtedly. The post textbox doesn't do compile checks.

wwb posted:

A bit late for this party, but what you probably wanted to use are custom configuration sections rather than any funky XML Serialization. Not to say XML Serialization is not fun, easy nor cool. But for config, use the config stuff.

FinkieMcGee posted:

Is there any reason the string searches in C# can't match on numbers?

FinkieMcGee posted:

I mean, it's pretty simple, the filter variable is read from a search box:

code:

match.ObjStyle.Label.StartsWith(filter, [b]StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase[/b])

Where filter is something like "G4", there are a couple of things that start with G4 in there.

Fastbreak posted:

The biggest thing by far that we find is people, including myself sometimes, forget to close datareaders or dispose certain objects, etc. Is there a way to customize VS to throw a warning if they aren't closed? Is there a custom snippet I can write in that would make it do this? A third party app? I have googled all over but I must not be using the right words. Anyone know of something like this?

FinkieMcGee posted:

Follwup question, hopefully not as stupid:

Is there anyway to easily ignore case using the Contains method like you can with startswith and endswith?

Edit: Other than not using ToUpper() on or both strings.

csammis posted:

Not generally, because Contains is implemented on collections of all types and not just collections of strings.

FinkieMcGee posted:

Why don't you just use Using statements to avoide the whole mess of closing/disposing? The only way I've found to realize that stuff is when stuff on the db end goes to hell.

Fastbreak posted:

Some stuff doesn't implement idisposable. We also have a company internal framework with a custom class that I would like certain functions required to be called and throw an error if they are not.

Not possible?

Fastbreak posted:

Some stuff doesn't implement idisposable. We also have a company internal framework with a custom class that I would like certain functions required to be called and throw an error if they are not.

Not possible?

ray2k posted:

You could write a Visual Studio Addin that scans for those common scenarios and prevents a compile from passing if they are found. But it would be far more effort than, you know, remembering to actually dispose of things correctly the first time.

uXs posted:

Can't you do this sort of thing in something like FxCop ? I've never used it or seen it closely, but I'm fairly sure it's a tool that can check code for compliance to all sorts of rules. Not closing connections seems like right up its alley. If you have a Team Foundation Server you could even make compliance required before you're allowed to check in code.

uXs posted:

Can't you do this sort of thing in something like FxCop ? I've never used it or seen it closely, but I'm fairly sure it's a tool that can check code for compliance to all sorts of rules. Not closing connections seems like right up its alley. If you have a Team Foundation Server you could even make compliance required before you're allowed to check in code.

ray2k posted:

You could write a Visual Studio Addin that scans for those common scenarios and prevents a compile from passing if they are found. But it would be far more effort than, you know, remembering to actually dispose of things correctly the first time.

Fastbreak posted:

There are certain functions for cleanup that we always want use in our custom framework.

csammis posted:

I'm just curious here:


If that's true, why aren't you implementing the Disposable pattern across your objects and calling those functions in Dispose() ? It'd certainly help consistency, if nothing else.

Fastbreak posted:

Implementing Idisposable for these objects are on the list of things to do. Its right behind all the stuff that makes money so its never going to get done, sadly. I don't make the priorities, I just follow them.