I need to pass a DataTable object by value over a tcp socket. Unfortunately,
I am forced to use the .NET framework ver. 1.1 for reasons that I don't want
to get into. Does anybody know how I can do this?
Note: if I had been luck enough to be able to use the .NET Framework ver.
2.0, I could have just converted the table to XML and sent it across, right?
"Rohit"
news:9CBDFF0C-4769-4B40-AA59-0D3AE0E4BC02@microsoft.com...
>I need to pass a DataTable object by value over a tcp socket.
>Unfortunately,
> I am forced to use the .NET framework ver. 1.1 for reasons that I don't
> want
> to get into. Does anybody know how I can do this?
>
> Note: if I had been luck enough to be able to use the .NET Framework ver.
> 2.0, I could have just converted the table to XML and sent it across,
> right?
You can also do it with .NET 1.1. Add the DataTable to a DataSet, then
serialize the DataSet.
Could you also use .NET Remoting?
--
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
John Saunders | MVP - Windows Server System - Connected System Developer
You can use serializers (XmlSerializer or BinarySerializer).
If the DataTable is Serializable (and as far as I can remember in .Net 1.0
it is) then you don't event have to add it to DataSet and still after
serialization send it over the wire. Not adding to DataSet would be more
performant due to less amount of data.
--
Best regards,
Cezary Nolewajka
Consultant | Microsoft Services | Microsoft | Poland
"John Saunders [MVP]"
news:OKLO1$qUIHA.4360@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Rohit"
> news:9CBDFF0C-4769-4B40-AA59-0D3AE0E4BC02@microsoft.com...
>>I need to pass a DataTable object by value over a tcp socket.
>>Unfortunately,
>> I am forced to use the .NET framework ver. 1.1 for reasons that I don't
>> want
>> to get into. Does anybody know how I can do this?
>>
>> Note: if I had been luck enough to be able to use the .NET Framework ver.
>> 2.0, I could have just converted the table to XML and sent it across,
>> right?
>
> You can also do it with .NET 1.1. Add the DataTable to a DataSet, then
> serialize the DataSet.
>
> Could you also use .NET Remoting?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
> John Saunders | MVP - Windows Server System - Connected System Developer
>
>
to do with perpetuity,
holiness, and miracles. The heretics deny them, or deny the conclusions to
be drawn from them; they do the same. But one would need to have no
sincerity in order to deny them, or again to lose one's senses in order to
deny the conclusions to be drawn from them.
Nobody has ever suffered martyrdom for the miracles which he says he has
seen; for the folly of men goes perhaps to the length of martyrdom, for
those which the Turks believe by tradition, but not for those which they
have seen.
845. The heretics have always attacked these three marks, which they have
not.
846. First objection: "An angel from heaven. We must not judge of truth by
miracles, but of miracles by truth. Therefore the miracles are useless.
Now they are of use, and they must not be in opposition to the truth.
Therefore what Father Lingende has said that "God will not permit that a
miracle may lead into error..."
When there shall be a controversy in the same Church, miracle will decide.
Second objection: "But Antichrist will do miracles."
The magicians of Pharaoh did not entice to error. Thus we cannot say to
Jesus respecting Antichrist, "You have led me into error." For Antichrist
will do them against Jesus Christ, and so they cannot lead into error.
Either God will not permit false miracles, or He will procure greater.
Jesus Christ has existed since the beginning of the world: this is more
impressive than all the miracles of Antichrist.
If in the same Church there