How many add keys can you have with "orderToAddress" value = "email#email.com" ?
I would like to have multiple e-mail addresses listed so an e-mail is sent to each "orderToAddress" and am not sure how many I can add. Is the last one in the list the only one that will receive an e-mail?
Thanks,
TLF
Key is a unique identifier. So you can't have multiple keys with same name (in this case "orderToAddress"). You need to have different names (e.g. orderToAddress1, orderToAddress2 etc) for each e-mail. Then you could have as many as you like.
But, my worry is why do you save these values in Web.config? You should consider to save these values in the DB or in a different config source.
Hope this helps!
Related
In web.config, why can't we have duplicate connection strings and handlers but on the other hand, we can have duplicates <appSettings> child elements with the same key name at the same level or down the inheritance hierarchy?
I don't this will complete answer to your question or not but I have some information that I would like to share.
If you look
ConfigurationManager.AppSettings
then it is NameValueCollection and If you give two key with same name default implementation will return latest value ( Last value in order for that key) but if you want to support multiple key support and you want it return all value for that key than you can replace appSettings default behavior with custom implementation.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/4302/How-to-make-AppSettings-work-with-multiple-values
But In case of connection string it is sealed class ConnectionStringSettingsCollection.
It is implement to support only one key with same name present and at web.config level it allow duplicate value for name but when you try to access it will throw error. It make sense in connection string case as well otherwise it get confused which to choose.
As per my point it is just implementing different way to support and reduce confusion.
Does anyone have some code or a link as to how to create the user login name as a parameter during a sql query in ASP.NET?
Basically I want to use the default membership structure with a new field ClubID, then I want to add a new table called aspnet_Clubs which contains things such as Club Name, stadium name, Balance etc etc... and then use a relationship between ClubID and a field in the aspnet_Clubs table to tie things together.
Then when each user logs in they should see the clubs information specific to their loginID.
I know the syntax to use for the query, its getting the loginname parameter and being able to use/assign it as part of the search that is causing me the problem.
In general it is not recommended to break the default schema of the aspnetdb where the Membership data is stored. It can bring you to unexpected consequences in the future.
I had a similar question a couple of days ago, please check it here, may be you will be able to adopt something from the discussion to your situation.
I'm looking for a fast & elegant way of converting my object IDs with descriptive names, so that my autogenerated routes look like:
/products/oak-table-25x25-3-1
instead of
/products/5bd8c59c-fc37-40c3-bf79-dd30e79b55a5
In this sample:
uid = "5bd8c59c-fc37-40c3-bf79-dd30e79b55a5"
name = "Oak table (25x25) 3/1"
I don't even know how that feature could be named, so that I might google for it.
The problem that I see so far is the uniqueness of that "url-object-name", for example if I have two oak tables 25x35 in the db, and their names differ too little to be uniquely url-named but enough to fool the unique constraint in the db.
I'm thinking of writing that function for name-transform in SQL as an UDF, then adding a calculated field that returns it, then unique-constraining that field.
Is there some more mainstream way of achieving that?
One method is that employed by stackoverflow.com which in your case would be:
/products/5bd8c59c-fc37-40c3-bf79-dd30e79b55a5/oak-table-25x25-3-1
This ensures uniqueness, however the length of the UUID may be a deterrent. You may consider adding a sequential int or bigint identity value to the products table in addition to the uniqueidentifier field. This however would require an additional index on that column for lookup, though a similar index would be required for a Url having only a descritive string. Yet another method would be to use a hash value, seeded by date for instance, which you can compose with the descriptive name. It is simpler to rely on a sequential ID value generated by a database, but if you envision use NoSQL storage mechanisms in the future you may consider using an externally generated hash value to append.
Identity should have 2 properties: it should be unique and unchangable. If you can guarantee, that /products/oak-table-25x25-3-1 will never change to /products/oak-table-25x25-3-1-1 (remember, user can have bookmarks, that shouldn't return 404 statuscode)- you can use name as url parameter and get record by this parameter.
If you can't guarantee uniqueness or want to select record more faster - use next:
/products/123/oak-table-25x25-3-1 - get record by id (123)
/products/123/blablabla - should redirect to first, because blabla no exists or have anoher id
/products/123 - should redirect to first
And try to use more short identities - remember, that at web 2.0 url is a part of UI, and UI should be friendly.
MVC routing (actions) will handle spaces and slashes in a name. It will encode them as %20, and then decode them correctly.
Thus your URL would be /products/oak%20table%2025x25-3%2F1
I have done something very similar in an eCommerce platform I am working on.
The idea is that the URL without the unique ID is better for SEO but we didn't want the unique ID to be the product name that can change often.
The solution was to implement .NET MVC "URL slug only" functionality. The product manager creates "slugs" for every product that are unique and are assigned to products. These link to the product but the product ID and name can be changed whenever.
This allows:
domain.com/oak-table-25x25-3-1
to point to:
/products/5bd8c59c-fc37-40c3-bf79-dd30e79b55a5
(The same functionality can be used on categories too so domain.com/tables can point to domain.com/category/5b38c79c-f837-42c3-bh79-dd405479b15b5)
I have documented how I did this at:
http://makit.net/post/3380143142/dotnet-slug-only-urls
In the standard forms authentication, users are identified by a Guid. I want to give my users an UserId of type int (doesn't have to be the primary key, just something to do lookup's on).
Is it safe to add an additional column to the aspnet_users table, or should I create a new table which FKs to the UserId column and has a Unique column which generates the integer ID?
The later sounds like a bad performance hit to take just for the sake of an int!
EDIT
I want to create URLs like those on stackoverflow. eg. https://stackoverflow.com/users/23590/greg-b where the User ID is an int. For that reason I don't want to use Guids.
I'd create profiles and store the associated urlID there. Web Forms don't have Profiles available out of the box, but you can see a workaround here:
http://www.codersbarn.com/post/2008/06/01/ASPNET-Web-Site-versus-Web-Application-Project.aspx
The advantage of using Profiles is that you can tap into all the existing logic and won't have to write as much custom code yourself, aside from constructing the URL.
You could combine this with Routing for friendly URLs, if you're using ASP.NET 3.5 or up.
UPDATE: kinda similar question:
Shorter GUID using CRC
Using the Dynamics CRM I'm trying to create an instance of an entity. I would like to manually set the GUID, but if I had the attribute that is the primary key to the DynamicEntity, I get following error.
Service could not process request
I am building a DynamicEntity, and setting the [entityname]id attribute causes the request to fail. It's moving data between two CRM instances, so if anyone knows of a better way to copy records between CRMs, that'd work too. Otherwise, I'd like the GUID to match across instances... as that's the point of a GUID.
Happily, it IS possible to do this across two CRM instances! A co-worker knew the solution, so credit really belongs to him.
My mistake was creating a Property with type UniqueIdentifierProperty. The primary key attribute on an entity needs to be filled in with a KeyProperty. These two properties are nearly identical -- the Property types are, except that one holds a Key, the other a UniqueIdentifier. The Key/UniqueIdentifier both hold GUIDs. (Another day in the mind of Microsoft!)
Precisely, what I'm doing is creating a DynamicEntity, filling in the entity name, and filling in the majority of the attributes. The PK attribute (which you can determine from the metadata) can be filled in with a KeyProperty. I was filling it in with a UniqueIdentifierProperty, which CRM rejects and responds with a nondescript and unhelpful error message.
I apologize if I am over-simplifying the solution, but why not add a custom field in both instances that would be a mirror of the other instances guid?