|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
copying foldersHow do I copy subfolders from one directory to another. I tried
"moveto", but that only moves the subfolders. I only see "copyto" for files. Sorry about the novice question. I have VB dotNet 2003. On May 18, 3:48 am, Jim Madsen <jus***@nobody.com> wrote:
> How do I copy subfolders from one directory to another. I tried To copy a folder including its subfolders recursively, you can use:> "moveto", but that only moves the subfolders. I only see "copyto" for > files. > > Sorry about the novice question. I have VB dotNet 2003. My.Computer.FileSystem.CopyDirectory See here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2swy9y5e(VS.80).aspx Onur Güzel On May 18, 8:25 pm, Onur Güzel <kimiraikkone***@gmail.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On May 18, 3:48 am, Jim Madsen <jus***@nobody.com> wrote: Note: That feature under My namespace is provided in .NET 2.0 and> > > How do I copy subfolders from one directory to another. I tried > > "moveto", but that only moves the subfolders. I only see "copyto" for > > files. > > > Sorry about the novice question. I have VB dotNet 2003. > > To copy a folder including its subfolders recursively, you can use: > > My.Computer.FileSystem.CopyDirectory > > See here:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2swy9y5e(VS.80).aspx > > Onur Güzel above, as you're using .NET 1.1 with VS 2003, you may need a custom function that does it using System.IO. Maybe: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/files/CopyFiles.aspx HTH, Onur Güzel "Onur Güzel" <kimiraikkone***@gmail.com> wrote in message This is worse than than DLL Hell in the real Visual Basic!news:b520b01d-5b15-45dc-93e8-d96689c45770@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > Note: That feature under My namespace is provided > in .NET 2.0 and above, as you're using .NET 1.1 with > VS 2003, you may need a custom function that does it > using System.IO. On 2009-05-18, Mike Williams <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote:
> "Onur Güzel" <kimiraikkone***@gmail.com> wrote in message really? how? functionality was added in 2.0 that did not exist in 1.1.> news:b520b01d-5b15-45dc-93e8-d96689c45770@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > >> Note: That feature under My namespace is provided >> in .NET 2.0 and above, as you're using .NET 1.1 with >> VS 2003, you may need a custom function that does it >> using System.IO. > > This is worse than than DLL Hell in the real Visual Basic! > > seems reasonable to me - since it doesn't break pre 2.0 code... -- Tom Shelton "Tom Shelton" <tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message But doesn't it force people who write code using the functionality of 2.0 to news:eNJuDf$1JHA.1716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > really? how? functionality was added in 2.0 that did not > exist in 1.1. seems reasonable to me - since it doesn't > break pre 2.0 code... force everyone who uses their application to download the massive 2.0 framework, or to distribute it and install it with their app? How does that work in .net? On 2009-05-18, Mike Williams <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" <tom_shel***@comcastXXXXXXX.net> wrote in message Probably, but it doesn't break existing apps. So, again - I don't see any> news:eNJuDf$1JHA.1716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >> really? how? functionality was added in 2.0 that did not >> exist in 1.1. seems reasonable to me - since it doesn't >> break pre 2.0 code... > > But doesn't it force people who write code using the functionality of 2.0 to > force everyone who uses their application to download the massive 2.0 > framework, or to distribute it and install it with their app? simularity at all. -- Tom Shelton Mike --
"Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> schrieb: It's almost² the same situation we experienced with different versions of >> really? how? functionality was added in 2.0 that did not >> exist in 1.1. seems reasonable to me - since it doesn't >> break pre 2.0 code... > > But doesn't it force people who write code using the functionality of 2.0 > to force everyone who uses their application to download the massive 2.0 > framework, or to distribute it and install it with their app? How does > that work in .net? Classic VB. An application which made use of functionality included in the VB5 runtime didn't run on a system which had only the VB4 runtime installed. ----- ² "almost" because the situation is a bit better with .NET than with Classic VB: An application compiled against the VBn runtime never worked on a system which only had the VBm (m <> n) runtime installed. In .NET, there is even some kind of cross-version compatibility. An application compiled against .NET Framework n will run on systems which have ..NET Framework m (m >= n) installed, and it may run on systems which only have .NET Framework o (o < n) installed if only the subset of functionality provided by the "older" version of the .NET Framework is used by the application. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to these rules. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message Yes, but the VB5 runtime (and the VB6 runtime) are both less than 2 MB and news:uIWvwAA2JHA.4944@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > An application which made use of functionality included > in the VB5 runtime didn't run on a system which had > only the VB4 runtime installed. are, as far as I am aware, present by default on all standard installations of Win XP upwards and are in any case easily redistributable. You certainly cannot say the same for the various variants of the net framework! > In .NET, there is even some kind of cross-version compatibility. What you have just described is a complete mess. I would much sooner be > An application compiled against .NET Framework n will run on > systems which have .NET Framework m (m >= n) installed, > and it may run on systems which only have .NET Framework > o (o < n) installed if only the subset of functionality provided > by the "older" version of the .NET Framework is used by the application. > Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to > these rules. clear on exactly what is required and have a definite "No" instead of all this "maybe, possibly, yes but only if . . ." stuff. We were promised that dotnet would fix all the Classic Visual Basic "DLL Hell" for us, but instead it has just made matters worse. I was rather hoping for a system such as I believe Delphi to be (or perhaps to have been before they too moved down the dotnet road) where in Delphi you could compile an app and the compiled exe would be completely self contained and would run on whatever machine you threw it at (at least that's how I understood Delphi to have worked). But Micro$oft have not done that. They have replaced DLL Hell with an even worse Hell in which everyone in the world has to rely on a fast broadband connection to the Micro$oft servers for anything to work at all! I suppose that is to be expected from a company that is heading full speed down the road to what they believe is their own rental heaven, but it really is very disappointing. Mike One advantage of requiring .Net to be installed as opposed to compiling
everything into an executable is that parts can be left out so each app is smaller. Sure there's more to download to install your first .Net app but there's less duplication. You can stick with the older version of .Net if you want your app to be as backward compatible as possible with older hardware and/or OSs, but the PC trend is to force everyone to upgrade sooner or later. The latest .Net does run on Windows XP which most people should have by now. Many programs (Turbo Tax for one) already require Windows XP. I don't know what the size is of the latest .Net download but a lot of (if not most) people already have broadband access, Obama promised to get broadband access to all Americans, and you can download anything even on dialup (it'll just take a lot longer). Of course, again, once they get the ..Net framework installed, the apps themselves should be smaller to download. If you'd rather save a lot of space, make everything backward compatible, and give yourself more headaches to write the programs, stick with assembler. Show quoteHide quote "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message news:eZ9$okE2JHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message > news:uIWvwAA2JHA.4944@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> An application which made use of functionality included >> in the VB5 runtime didn't run on a system which had >> only the VB4 runtime installed. > > Yes, but the VB5 runtime (and the VB6 runtime) are both less than 2 MB and > are, as far as I am aware, present by default on all standard > installations of Win XP upwards and are in any case easily > redistributable. You certainly cannot say the same for the various > variants of the net framework! > >> In .NET, there is even some kind of cross-version compatibility. >> An application compiled against .NET Framework n will run on >> systems which have .NET Framework m (m >= n) installed, >> and it may run on systems which only have .NET Framework >> o (o < n) installed if only the subset of functionality provided >> by the "older" version of the .NET Framework is used by the application. >> Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to >> these rules. > > What you have just described is a complete mess. I would much sooner be > clear on exactly what is required and have a definite "No" instead of all > this "maybe, possibly, yes but only if . . ." stuff. We were promised that > dotnet would fix all the Classic Visual Basic "DLL Hell" for us, but > instead it has just made matters worse. I was rather hoping for a system > such as I believe Delphi to be (or perhaps to have been before they too > moved down the dotnet road) where in Delphi you could compile an app and > the compiled exe would be completely self contained and would run on > whatever machine you threw it at (at least that's how I understood Delphi > to have worked). But Micro$oft have not done that. They have replaced DLL > Hell with an even worse Hell in which everyone in the world has to rely on > a fast broadband connection to the Micro$oft servers for anything to work > at all! I suppose that is to be expected from a company that is heading > full speed down the road to what they believe is their own rental heaven, > but it really is very disappointing. > > Mike > > "Mike Williams" <M***@WhiskyAndCoke.com> schrieb: Well, but distribution of the Classic VB runtime was a problem when PCs >> An application which made use of functionality included >> in the VB5 runtime didn't run on a system which had >> only the VB4 runtime installed. > > Yes, but the VB5 runtime (and the VB6 runtime) are both less than 2 MB and > are, as far as I am aware, present by default on all standard > installations of Win XP upwards and are in any case easily > redistributable. You certainly cannot say the same for the various > variants of the net framework! didn't have an internet connection and software was distributed primarily on floppy disks back in the last decade. >> In .NET, there is even some kind of cross-version compatibility. Well, I just didn't want to go into detail. There is definitely no "No" >> An application compiled against .NET Framework n will run on >> systems which have .NET Framework m (m >= n) installed, >> and it may run on systems which only have .NET Framework >> o (o < n) installed if only the subset of functionality provided >> by the "older" version of the .NET Framework is used by the application. >> Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to >> these rules. > > What you have just described is a complete mess. I would much sooner be > clear on exactly what is required and have a definite "No" instead of all > this "maybe, possibly, yes but only if . . ." stuff. because the compatiblity I described is defined ("by design") behavior. > We were promised that dotnet would fix all the Classic Visual Basic "DLL DLL hell in the days of Classic VB was not a VB-only problem. It has been > Hell" for us, but instead it has just made matters worse. I was rather > hoping for a system such as I believe Delphi to be (or perhaps to have > been before they too moved down the dotnet road) where in Delphi you could > compile an app and the compiled exe would be completely self contained and > would run on whatever machine you threw it at (at least that's how I > understood Delphi to have worked). But Micro$oft have not done that. caused by the operating system which didn't provide sufficient mechanisms for DLL versioning and loading. This has changed in the meantime, and Windows XP and newer versions of Windows allow XCOPY deployment of almost self-contained packages of files (EXE, DLL, OCX, ...). Windows now contains even something like an unmanaged GAC (WinSxS). That's all not really related to Classic VB. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/> Thanks to you and everyone else that replied. Given my needs, and
because I am (and probably always will) be a novice in vbdot net, unless I can take formal training, I decided, I will just use a loop to create the directories in the destination folder, and use fileinfo to copy the files I want copied over there (this might be best for me, since I only want selected files to go there). My main question was whether such a utility existed in VBdotNet2003, and the "no" answer saved me a lot of looking for it. Thanks again Jim Onur Güzel wrote: Show quoteHide quote > On May 18, 8:25 pm, Onur Güzel <kimiraikkone***@gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 18, 3:48 am, Jim Madsen <jus***@nobody.com> wrote: >> >>> How do I copy subfolders from one directory to another. I tried >>> "moveto", but that only moves the subfolders. I only see "copyto" for >>> files. >>> Sorry about the novice question. I have VB dotNet 2003. >> To copy a folder including its subfolders recursively, you can use: >> >> My.Computer.FileSystem.CopyDirectory >> >> See here:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2swy9y5e(VS.80).aspx >> >> Onur Güzel > > Note: That feature under My namespace is provided in .NET 2.0 and > above, as you're using .NET 1.1 with VS 2003, you may need a custom > function that does it using System.IO. > > Maybe: > http://www.codeproject.com/KB/files/CopyFiles.aspx > > HTH, > > Onur Güzel >
error when updating Listview after record add
Can you edit auto generated Partial Class Designer VB code? create reference number based on old one... Send Email Using VB 2008 Express Detecting Design Time vs Run Time Property Set action Problem with turning off Appication Frameworks and with posting al Drawing images in asp.net Vb.net[2008] Combo box population from text file (40,000 lines!) BigInteger and BigDecimal [equivalents] for VB.NET? Running App in design environment is very slow |
|||||||||||||||||||||||