Bundling VB Files?
in [Visual Studio]
|
Prev: hooking into a window and peeking/poking memory
Next: Mike Williams' ideal world (Was: Bundling VB Files?)
From: Tom Shelton on 2 Aug 2010 23:58 After serious thinking Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote : > For most small projects, in VB6 and earlier, you could just email > someone the form file, and VB would open it and away you go. > > I've recently been shifted to VB2008, which I find is full of > needless complications. One of them is that you can't just send a > form file: it appears that the information which used to be stored > in the form file is now split across several different files, for > no reason that makes the least sense to me. > > Aside from zipping up the entire tree, does anyone know of a way in > VB2008 to have it store all the information about a form in one file, > so as to simplify sharing small projects? > > > Darren Provine ! kilroy(a)elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy > "I use not only all the brains I have, but all those I can borrow as > well." -- Woodrow Wilson Hmmm... While I can't imagine sending a single form without the entire project - it's not that difficult. You simply open the folder and grab the 2 or 3 files that make up a typical form, zip, and send. For instance, if for a form named MyForm will typically be broken down into the followin 3 files MyForm.vb MyForm.Designer.vb MyForm.resx The MyForm.vb contains user code, where as MyForm.Designer.vb contains the code generated by the windows forms designer. The resx file is your resources (this is some what akin to the .frx file from VB.CLASSIC). The .net forms designer uses code serialization to represent forms - and in versions previous to 2005 it was all in one file, MyForm.vb. This was somewhat messy and programmers sometimes were tempted to mess with the generated code - only to have the changes lost next time the designer decided to regenerate the form. With introduction of partial classes - the ability to split a class across more than one file - in VB2005, the desginer and user code began to be seperated in a more logical manner. As an interesting side note, partial classes also were a work around for the inadequacies of microsoft's visual source safe and it's terrible locking behavior. The introduction of partial classes made it easier for 2 devs to work on the same class without running into VSS's horrible (and well documented deficiencies - there is a reason that MS dumped it after VSS2005). Of course, now that I use a real source control engine (subversion) partial classes are really only good for designer or wizard generated code :) This has been taken even a step farther in 2008 with the introduction of partial methods.... HTH -- Tom Shelton
From: Mike Williams on 3 Aug 2010 02:53 "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message news:i3837n$gg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > I advise you and the other .NOTTERS to actually read > the charter of this group. It DOES NOT limit this group > to classic VB in anyway - Of course it doesn't! Are you really that stupid? The charter (if one actually exists) would have been written long before the dotnet imposter was first released and whoever wrote that charter had no idea that Micro$oft would one day release an imposter based on a totally different programming paradigm and that they would dishonestly continue to apply the name Visual Basic to it. There is no need for an amendment to the charter, and anyone with any sense at all who has been using the Visual Basic newsgroups for any length of time knows exactly which group refers to which product. Also, the people who do arrive at the wrong group are usually either newcomers or people who have not previously frequented the programming newsgroups, and those people will NOT read any charter before posting, so there is no point in changing it. Even Micro$oft themselves realised that their dotnet product was something new and completely different, which is why Micro$oft created a new and completely different newsgroup for it on their own servers, and Micro$oft continued to run their own real Visual Basic newsgroup and their new and different neswgroup for their new and different product in parallel, something they had never previously felt the need to do in respect of the various different versions of the real Visual Basic. It is not the newsgroup charter that needs to be changed, it is the name of the new dotnet product, which is a dishonest and deliberate Micro$oft ploy to fool people and to capitalise on the popularity of the real Visual Basic. Mike
From: Tom Shelton on 3 Aug 2010 03:55 Mike Williams wrote : > "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message > news:i3837n$gg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > I advise you and the other .NOTTERS to actually read >> the charter of this group. It DOES NOT limit this group >> to classic VB in anyway - > > Of course it doesn't! Are you really that stupid? No, but apparently you are. > The charter (if one > actually exists) Here's one reference: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/visual-basic-faq/general-info/ > would have been written long before the dotnet imposter was > first released and whoever wrote that charter had no idea that Micro$oft > would one day release an imposter based on a totally different programming > paradigm and that they would dishonestly continue to apply the name Visual > Basic to it. You mean like the differences between VBDOS and VBWin. Or the changes between vb3 and vb4 - you know, a total change in paradigm. Going from non-com to COM. Dos to windows? The introduction of classes, etc? Your going to have to do better then that, Mike. And may I remind you, like it or not - Microsoft, not you defines what is or is not Visual Basic. That's what you get when you use a proprietary language... > There is no need for an amendment to the charter, and anyone > with any sense at all who has been using the Visual Basic newsgroups for any > length of time knows exactly which group refers to which product. What are you talking about? That may have applied over on the MS groups - because there was a specific group for vb.net. But, there is no such division in the comp.lang.* hiearchy. > Also, the > people who do arrive at the wrong group are usually either newcomers or > people who have not previously frequented the programming newsgroups, and > those people will NOT read any charter before posting, so there is no point > in changing it. > Ah, but you see - the charter defines what is or is not off topic. And since, according to the charter this is a area for discussing all versions of visual basic - it is NOT off topic here. And until the charter is changed I will answer - or not - any question I please. The fact is, lately, I find yours and especially Kevin's reactions to any mention of .NET highly ammusing (though, a little pathetic). Yes, I realise that is probably a little trollish - but, given that VB.NET is not off topic here, your attempts to play moderator on an unmoderated group and intimidate vb.net users is just as trollish. > Even Micro$oft themselves realised that their dotnet product was something > new and completely different, which is why Micro$oft created a new and > completely different newsgroup for it on their own servers, There are no doubts that the languages have differences - not all for the better - but at it's core it's still Visual Basic. It still allows most of the same sloppy habbits and bad coding practices that VB.CLASSIC did :) Microsoft created a whole new hiearchy - the microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.* - of course that included vb.net... it also included c# and javascript and j#. And probably would include things like iron python, iron ruby, and f# if they were still supporting the newsgroups... duh? new platform... > and Micro$oft > continued to run their own real Visual Basic newsgroup and their new and > different neswgroup for their new and different product in parallel, > something they had never previously felt the need to do in respect of the > various different versions of the real Visual Basic. > And? To be honest, I never saw an official statement that said that only VB.CLASSIC could be discussed on the microsoft.public.vb.general.dicussion group. I think most people were just letting you cry-babies have your way... LOL. Seriously though, at the time, it made sense, as both platforms were still being supported. But, now vb.classic is as dead and unsupported as VB3 or VBDOS... > It is not the newsgroup charter that needs to be changed, it is the name of > the new dotnet product, which is a dishonest and deliberate Micro$oft ploy to > fool people and to capitalise on the popularity of the real Visual Basic. LOL... Mike you know next to nothing about VB beyond version 6. You have no idea, beyond some old and tired propeganda, how it is or is not different. -- Tom Shelton
From: Mike Williams on 3 Aug 2010 04:51 "Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton(a)comcast.invalid> wrote in message news:i38i1s$fr0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > You mean like the differences between VBDOS and VBWin. > Or the changes between vb3 and vb4 - you know, a total > change in paradigm. That's not the same thing, and you know it. As far as actual VB3 code is concerned, the similarity between VB3 and VB4 far outweighs the differences. The change from 16 bit to 32 bit (and other stuff) when VB4 was released was dealt with properly by Micro$oft. VB4 was an honest and worthwhile upgrade that added a lot of new stuff without taking much away, and Micro$oft ensured that the people who owned VB3 could in almost all cases easily move their code from one version to the other, and they specifically created VB4 in such a way that it would deal with both 16 bit and 32 bit. VB4 was clearly a genuine and honest upgrade of VB3. It was still the real Visual Basic. That is not the case with the dotnet imposter, which is something completely different and which has been dishonestly given the name VB and has been dishonestly peppered with VB sounding constructs purely for marketing purposes. Micro$oft are aware of this, and it seems that only you and the other dotnet evangelists are not, as is evidenced by the fact that Micro$oft did NOT see the need to create a new newsgroup on their own servers and to run a VB3 group and a separate VB4 group in parallel, whereas they DID create a new and different newsgroup for their new and different dotnet imposter, and they have ran both the Classic VB group and the imposter's new and different newsgroup in parallel on their own servers. That is a fact. > LOL... Mike you know next to nothing about > VB beyond version 6. There is no VB beyond version 6. Forget the Micro$oft lies, Tom. Wake up, and smell the coffee. Having said that, I am not knocking the dotnet imposter in the way that you seem to think I am doing. If people want to use that kind of product, and apparently many people do (especially since Micro$oft have been pushing it down our throats to the extent that they have for years been giving perfectly workable versions of it away for free!) then that is up to them. That's fine with me. It is just not a product for me personally, and I have no desire to use it. The only real problem I have with the imposter is that I do not like being lied to, and I shall continue to tell people who mistakenly come here for answers to their dotnet questions about the Micro$oft lies that have brought them here. Mike
From: Dee Earley on 3 Aug 2010 04:54
On 03/08/2010 04:58, Tom Shelton wrote: > After serious thinking Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote : >> Aside from zipping up the entire tree, does anyone know of a way in >> VB2008 to have it store all the information about a form in one file, >> so as to simplify sharing small projects? > > Hmmm... While I can't imagine sending a single form without the entire > project - it's not that difficult. You simply open the folder and grab > the 2 or 3 files that make up a typical form, zip, and send. > > For instance, if for a form named MyForm will typically be broken down > into the followin 3 files > > MyForm.vb > MyForm.Designer.vb > MyForm.resx > > The MyForm.vb contains user code, where as MyForm.Designer.vb contains > the code generated by the windows forms designer. The resx file is your > resources (this is some what akin to the .frx file from VB.CLASSIC). If you really want them as a single code file, you can largely copy the MyForm.Designer.vb contents into the MyForm.vb file (Namespace/class headers may need adjusting at the join) I'm not sure how happy the designer will be with this though. -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.) |