I am taking a hand in development for the first time and trying to teach myself some things, and chose to start with ASP and Visual Studio. I have a rather simple question to ask... I generally search and search and search... but I don't know what the proper term/phrase is for what I'm searching for.
Assumptions: Visual Studio 2013 (not express), asp.net mvc5 with bootstrap(3.1.1) is what I'll be using.
Two part question: what is the phrase/term to use when searching for an answer to part two? data grid? data fill? something else?
The second part of my question is what are the most commonly used methods of creating and filling a table with data from an existing database? Do people almost always just have to hand code everything or are there great tools out there?
So far I only found...igniteUI and I haven't actually read the website to see what it's about yet. I want to be able to design something... maybe using bootstrap or boilerplate.. and then create tables and fill them with tables. I've only ever made static sites. Anything that has some kind of GUI that lets me build these tables and and direct certain data types to specific table columns and rows would be a major plus, as I could compare what I just did with the code that was created... and then I could learn to make cleaned up handcoded versions myself. this is how I learned web design, I figured I could learn SOME parts of development the same way.
As I said above, the reason I am asking this question is because I do not know what any of the proper term(s) for what I'm describing and wasn't sure where to start.
Welcome to SO.. kind of a loaded question and somewhat opinionated, but I have 2 spare cents I can offer.
In the end, it depends what data you are trying to present, and what you want that user to do with that data. With HTML, anyone can create a simple table and present some data (aka TR and TD tags). What's this good for? Showing tabular data. What's this not good for? Anything interactive...
OK, so then what do we use instead? Again.. depends what you're trying to allow the user to use, AND if you have any existing resources in place. For example, jqGrid is your front runner in late bound, jquery enabled sortable\editable data presentation. ExtJS is also a popular scripting library, and they have some tools as well.
But that's late bound, javascript enabled stuff.. what about things that are already bundled into ASP.NET? Well, you have the gridview and listview at your disposal. Both are nice because they allow some quick and easy ways to connect to structured data, and if you're using some of the more popular data stores, such as SQL server, you even get drag\droppable connections (aka, less coding). Telerik has been in the game a long time, and for some cash, you can get some pretty advanced tools.
Again, all opinionated stuff. ASP.NET has some very nice things out of box, but nothing is perfect.. all of the items mentioned above I have used at one time or another, and they've been a great foundation for starting my applications. But at the end of the day, I always had to take what was given to me and add\edit functionality to get what I ultimately needed.
Hope this helps...
We've just decided to purchase Google Apps for Business for a couple of users and are now running pilot for migration.
We have a certain issue, which we would like to see if it can be solved with Google Apps Script.
Suppose that the following situation applies:
At this moment we're in a domain and we have certain user templates set-up in documents such as a document for faxing and a document for memo's. These templates have application-logic behind them so the template gets filled in values for the users name, and branch office, ...
What we would like to do is replicate this behaviour in Google Drive, but I'm not sure what the best way is to implement such a feature.
Do we create a spreadsheet and in the script editor we write the full template from scratch? Or is it possible to have a template on the google apps account which we then can transform on open?
I hope I'm a bit clear of what we would like to achieve, but in case I'm not; do feel free to ask me more questions.
I hope to hear from you all!
Kind Regards
Your question relates more to a global appreciation of Google Apps than a script question... I'm not sure I should be answering here...
As a personal opinion I guess documents would be the best tool to get what you want. You'll have to create a couple of templates with personalization fields that a script would fill in with the 'logged user' data.
The document and doclist api are quite powerful and could also classify the created docs in folders and manage how they are eventually shared among users.
Depending on your abilities in javascript coding it can be anything between quite easy and really hard to build up ... :-)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to build a simple blog which contains:
A home page with blogs listed in the typical fashion: Title and content, plus read more to open a single entry.
A publish area: Title and Content
admin area to delete and modify posts.
No need for tags, users, or dates.
Take a look at this draft:
I have been looking for tutorials on the internet, but haven't found something simple enought to start working with.
EDIT
Found two nice tutorials. Haven't tested them, but looking at the
comments they seem reliable.
In this tutorial the steps look pretty straightforward and basic.
I'm still a noob in OOP, so this might be right for me:
http://css-tricks.com/1907-php-for-beginners-building-your-first-simple-cms/
This one is more elaborated, it contains users, dates, and tags. I
put it here for future reference:
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/how-to-create-an-object-oriented-blog-using-php/
But since you can't use WordPress, what do you need?
You obviously got a pretty concrete idea of how to build it. I think you should refine that further, and start building.
Don't overdo it in the beginning. Start by designing a very simple blog. Each post containing just a title and contents. Skip the use of WYSIWYG editors, and advanced admin options. Just make a view page for a post, a view page for the list (chronological), and an admin page to edit or add posts. Publishing can be done by just adding a simple 'published' field, which you can toggle using a checkbox.
Don't bother with users yet. Just use basic authentication.
If you stick to those simple definitions, you should be able to get a working blog in a short time. After that, you will have some idea of the possibilities (of your possibilities too) and you'll be able to build on the base you got.
If there would be a very extensive tutorial on building a blog, you would eventually still just be copying the samples in that tutorial. It's more fun to think of something yourself and search or ask help for specific problems you run into.
Maybe you will have to start over at some point. Remember, if you build something for the second time, you'll build it faster, and it will be better.
But it won't be good until the third time. ;)
Just do it. If you want to learn anything, simply figure it out. This is straightforward stuff. It'll teach you basic HTTP processing, some simple DB design and integration. Set up PHP/Perl/Python/Java/R/Common Lisp, add in MySQL or SQLite or whatever, follow a couple of HOWTOs, and just do it.
Really, you "don't need us" for this. Just break it down in to pieces. What are the right pieces? Whatever feels right to you. Seriously, unless you plan on hosting it to the wild world with some sensitive information, you really have nothing to lose here by just doing it yourself and pulling it off with amazing perfection or having it come out as a complete disaster. Both are rewarding in its own way.
If you have a specific question about a specific piece, you can come back, or head over to ServerFault, but you will likely be able to pull this off with even a teeny bit of persistence.
So just do it. Grab the keyboard by the plug and work the problem. It's better this way.
Found two nice tutorials. Haven't tested them, but looking at the
comments they seem reliable.
In this tutorial the steps look pretty straightforward and basic.
I'm still a noob in OOP, so this might be right for me:
http://css-tricks.com/1907-php-for-beginners-building-your-first-simple-cms/
This one is more elaborated, it contains users, dates, and tags. I
put it here for future reference:
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/how-to-create-an-object-oriented-blog-using-php/
For me this is just great run on tornado and app engine very basic and very good but i don't like comments and fb plugins etc try it source code.
A previous ver without tornado is also available: GitHub
Good day!
I want to make a form - a set of questions with different answer types:
some questions have a number of answers and you can check one of the answers using radiobutton, other questions you should answer using a textbox, some answers have a datetime type and you choose answer for them using a DatePicker and so on.
I get all information about the questions and answer types from a WCF service.
I want to make this form using making a dynamic xaml but i've naver made dynamic xaml and I don't know exactly how to make it.
Please, can you give me a council about dynamic xaml or maybe you have any other ideas about how to make this form?
Thank you.
Take a look at the following article and linked video to get an idea of dynamically creating UI elements
http://jesseliberty.com/2008/05/05/creating-controls-in-code/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on a complex application where different teams work on their own modules with a degree of overlap. A while back we got a Mediawiki instance set up, partly at my prompting. I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
I can see a lot of benefit in sharing information. It may at least reduce the times we reinvent the wheel.
The wiki is not very structured, but I'm not sure that is a problem as long as you can search for what you need.
Any hints?
Some tips:
Any time someone sends information by email that really should be in a wiki, make a page for that topic and add what they put in the email. Then reply "Thanks for that info, I've put it into the wiki here so that it's easier to find in the future."
Likewise, if you have information you need to share that should be in the wiki, put it there and just send an email with a link to it, rather than email people.
When you ask people for information, phrase it so that putting such documentation in the wiki should be considered the default or standard: "I searched in the wiki but I couldn't find it. Have you put that info up there yet?"
If you are the "wiki champion", make sure other people know how to use it, e.g. "Did I go through how to create a new page with you yet?"
Edit the sidebar to make sure it is relevant to your work.
Use "nav box" style templates on related pages for easier navigation.
Put something like {{Special:NewPages/5}} on the front page, or recent changes, so that people can see the activity.
Take a peek at Recent changes every few days or week, and if you notice someone adding information without being prodded, send them an email or drop by and give them a little compliment.
As I mentioned before, a Wiki is very unorganized.
However, if that is the only argument from your developers, then invest some effort to create a simple index page and keep it updated (either do it yourself or ask people to link their contributions to the index). That way, the Wiki might grow into a very nice and quite comprehensive collection of documentation for all your work.
We've been using a wiki in some form or another for a while now, but it does take a while for people to get on board. You might find that you will be the only one writing articles for some time, but bear with it, other people will come on board eventually.
If someone sends an email around that contains information related to the project then helpfully point them in the direction of the wiki - and keep doing that - they should get the hint.
We have a SharePoint portal and use the wiki from there - we customised it with our own branding so that it "looks the part" - I really feel this has helped to improve the uptake of it.
Make sure that everyone is aware that the wiki is even more informal than email.... because there will be a "fear factor" that people may think anything they add to the wiki will be over-analysed.
I think most of the answers so far are spot on - the more you plug away at it yourself, the larger the body of useful information will become, so slowly but surely people will naturally start to use it.
The other approach you could use is this: Suggest that every time someone asks another team member a question about the project, they should answer the question as normal, but also add the answer to a section of the Wiki. This may take a few minutes extra, but it will mean that the next time someone asks the same question (which they inevitably will), you can save time by pointing them at the Wiki. This, in turn, should help people to start using the Wiki as a first source of information and help overall up-take.
You can't force developers to do something they do not have an incentive of using for; unfortunately wikis, like documentation (well, in fact wikis are documentation) rarely have any "cool" value for developers. Besides, they're already deep into dev work -- could you really bother them with a wiki?
That being said, the people who pushed for the wiki (e.g., you) should be primarily responsible for updating it, and you really would have a lot of work cut out for you if you're serious about it.
You might also try the ff:
It's not very structured you say -- a lot of people get turned off from ill-structured (hard-to-search/browse) wikis. So maybe you can fix that first
Maybe you can ask lead developers/project managers to populate it with things that are issues for them: things like code conventions and API design for your particular project
Lead by example: religiously document your part of the system. Setting a precedent may encourage others to do the same
Sell the idea of using the wiki to the developers. You've identified some benefits, share those with the developers. If they can see that they'll get something of value out of it they'll start using it.
Example advantages from What Is a Wiki
Good for writing down quick ideas or longer ones, giving you more time for formal writing and editing.
Instantly collaborative without emailing documents, keeping the group in sync.
Accessible from anywhere with a web connection (if you don't mind writing in web-browser text forms).
Your archive, because every page revision is kept.
Exciting, immediate, and empowering--everyone has a say.
I have done some selling and even run some training sessions. I think some people are turned off by the lack of WYSIWYG editing and ability to paste formatted text from Word or Outlook. I know there are some tools to work around these, but they are still barriers.
There are some areas where the wiki is being used to log certain areas, but people who update those are not doing anything else with it.
I will use the wiki to document my specialised area regardless as it acts as a convenient brain extension. When starting a new development I use it as a notepad for ideas that I can expand on as it progresses.
It would help if management would give it some vocal support, even if it is not made mandatory.
I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
One of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, is to actually have them provide contents in a wiki-suitable fashion, i.e. so that whatever they post using their usual channels of communications (newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, issue trackers, chat), is basically suitable for inclusion on the wiki.
So that others (users/volunteers) can simply take such contents and put them on the wiki.
This sounds more complicated than it really is, it's mostly about generalizing questions and answers, so that they are not necessarily part of a conversation, but can be comprehensible, meaningful and useful in a standalone fashion.
For example a question like the following:
how do I get git to clone a remote repository???
Can be answered like this:
Hello,
Just use git clone git://...
But questions can also be answered in a less personal style:
In order to clone a git repository, you will want to use the clone parameter to git:
git clone git://....
What I am trying to say is that most discussions in a project can and should be easily used to become documentation eventually. With this sort of mindset, your documentation can actually grow rather rapidly. You only need to get people to keep in mind that useful information should be ideally provided in a fashion that is suitable for wiki inclusion.
I have witnessed several instances where open source projects started to use this approach to some extent and while some people (largely new users) complained that answers were not very personal, the body of documentation was increasing steadily, because other people simply monitored such discussions and started to copy/paste such responses to the wiki.
Basically, this is one of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, without requiring them to actually use it themselves, the only thing that's required of them is a shift in thinking.
If the developers still need to maintain 'real' documentation (s.a. Word documents), I see no way to meaningfully duplicate that on a Wiki.
It does not make sense for people to write twice
Any duplicated data is prone to get out of sync, soon.
What my current customer has done is move all this to Wiki. So I only document once, and I do it on the Wiki.
This is okay. Working with Wiki is more tedious than with Word, but at least the doc is online and others can mix-and-match with it.
Another working solution (imho) would be to store docs alongside the source, on subversion. But then the merging system needs to be able to cope with rich text etc. as well. I don't know, if any solution for that exists (other than using HTML or LaTex, which actually would not be bad picks).
Find "sticky" items (sub-3 pg. docs / diagrams / etc) something that the team seems to be creating again and again & post it on the wiki. Make sure everyone has access to the wiki and knows its there - set up a notification mechanism if possible. With some luck, the next time they have to access, rather than dig it out of version control or their machines - they should hit the wiki.
If they still don't, try to see if the team has enough slack to actually use the wiki - Subtler issues may lie beneath their reluctance.
Take a look at the advice at http://www.ikiw.org/ Grow your Wiki
Just to add to some of the excellent advice being offered here...
As a dev in a small company that does largely gov't contract work in the 6-24 month range, I find that my time is often split between development and writing status reports (right up there with writing documentation, only worse!) Having a wiki to slap down unorganized thoughts and notes as we go along has made report-writing a lot less painful (not pain-LESS, but better all the same).
Further, if you're already in the Mediawiki world, you might want to look at SemanticMediawiki. It allows you to take the organization of your data to another level by semantically tagging it. That doesn't mean a lot on its own, I know, but I can tell you (for example) that it can drastically improve the relevance of the data returned from searches. It is definitely worth a look.
Generally good advice here. I'd like to add:
You really need a champion - someone pushing this to developers and management (without being pushy - that's a challenge!) and providing support & tutorials when possible. This person also needs to be a peer (so a fellow developer, not someone in a remote IT department) and really customer focused i.e. ready to make changes when requested.
Speaking of changes, some people here say wikis are unstructured. I disagree. Our MediaWiki installation is structured using categories, particularly with two extensions:WarnNoCategories (to require users to add a category when saving a page) and CategoryTree to show how all the categories fit together (this can be linked to from the sidebar). I've got more tips on how we keep this low threshold, if you're interested.