Alternating INSERTs fail

In SQL Server 7, I have a stored procedure that does a simple INSERT. I call
it from ASP.NET.
It only succeeds every other time (i.e. alternating). No error is returned
when it doesn't work. A return value of 1 is always returned for both cases
(indicating 1 row affected) but the new data row simply isn't there exactly
every other time, alternating.
I even ran a trace, and I can see both inserts happen , and nothing else
comes along to delete any of the rows. But the problem persists.
The only difference that I see in the trace is the number of reads, and a
longer duration in the one that succeeds (the second one):
Event ClassObject IDDatabase IDTextApplication NameNT User NameSQL
User NameCPUReadsWritesDurationConnection IDSPIDStart Time
+RPC:Completed9InsertAccountLogin 377864, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
.Net SqlClient Data Providersa0400225912014:57:14.380
Event ClassObject IDDatabase IDTextApplication NameNT User NameSQL
User NameCPUReadsWritesDurationConnection IDSPIDStart Time
+RPC:Completed9InsertAccountLogin 377865, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
.Net SqlClient Data Providersa03017225912014:57:30.223
Can anyone suggest some more troubleshooting steps I can take here?
I've tried it with the stored procedure as:
================================
CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
Begin Transaction
Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
(@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
COMMIT Transaction
================================
and also
================================
CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
(@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
================================
Thanks,
Greg Holmes
You might try adding the sp:statement completed event to the trace. Do you
have any triggers on the table?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:26B9E0DA-EFF4-4371-A14A-E3EF007FDD1F@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL Server 7, I have a stored procedure that does a simple INSERT. I
> call
> it from ASP.NET.
> It only succeeds every other time (i.e. alternating). No error is
> returned
> when it doesn't work. A return value of 1 is always returned for both
> cases
> (indicating 1 row affected) but the new data row simply isn't there
> exactly
> every other time, alternating.
> I even ran a trace, and I can see both inserts happen , and nothing else
> comes along to delete any of the rows. But the problem persists.
> The only difference that I see in the trace is the number of reads, and a
> longer duration in the one that succeeds (the second one):
> Event Class Object ID Database ID Text Application Name NT User Name SQL
> User Name CPU Reads Writes Duration Connection ID SPID Start Time
> +RPC:Completed 9 InsertAccountLogin 377864, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
> .Net SqlClient Data Provider sa 0 4 0 0 22591 20 14:57:14.380
>
> Event Class Object ID Database ID Text Application Name NT User Name SQL
> User Name CPU Reads Writes Duration Connection ID SPID Start Time
> +RPC:Completed 9 InsertAccountLogin 377865, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
> .Net SqlClient Data Provider sa 0 3 0 17 22591 20 14:57:30.223
> Can anyone suggest some more troubleshooting steps I can take here?
>
> I've tried it with the stored procedure as:
> ================================
> CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
> char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
> Begin Transaction
> Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
> (@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
> COMMIT Transaction
> ================================
> and also
>
> ================================
> CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
> char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
> Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
> (@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
> ================================
>
> Thanks,
> Greg Holmes
|||"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> You might try adding the sp:statement completed event to the trace. Do you
> have any triggers on the table?
Thanks Dan. I added statement completed to the trace, but all that did was
add a
"sp:statement completed" line before each RPC line for the INSERTs. Those
"sp:statement completed" lines look identical.
This is so weird. The first field in the insert should be incrementing by
1s (by the ASP.NET application), but you can look at the rows and watch it go
up by 2s. I also added an auto incrementing field to the table and you can
watch the phenomenon there too ("1", "3", "5", etc.). It's actually
incrementing the auto-incrementing field, but not leaving a row in the
database, every other time.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:26B9E0DA-EFF4-4371-A14A-E3EF007FDD1F@.microsoft.com...
|||And I forgot to add - there are no triggers on the table.
"greg.holmes" wrote:

> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>
> Thanks Dan. I added statement completed to the trace, but all that did was
> add a
> "sp:statement completed" line before each RPC line for the INSERTs. Those
> "sp:statement completed" lines look identical.
> This is so weird. The first field in the insert should be incrementing by
> 1s (by the ASP.NET application), but you can look at the rows and watch it go
> up by 2s. I also added an auto incrementing field to the table and you can
> watch the phenomenon there too ("1", "3", "5", etc.). It's actually
> incrementing the auto-incrementing field, but not leaving a row in the
> database, every other time.
>
|||OK, here's the only thing that worked to remedy this - as you might expect,
my confidence in the robustness of this solution is low!
1. Switch from using Stored Procedure to local text SQL query.
2. Add an auto-incrementing identity field to the database.
Has to do both. Neither worked by itself.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:26B9E0DA-EFF4-4371-A14A-E3EF007FDD1F@.microsoft.com...
|||Another thing you might try is adding Exception, OLEDB Errors and Attention
events to the trace. Out of curiosity, did you change the existing
InternetID column to an IDENTITY or did you add a new column?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D4547FA-94AE-466C-ABE5-741FA72D2970@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> OK, here's the only thing that worked to remedy this - as you might
> expect,
> my confidence in the robustness of this solution is low!
> 1. Switch from using Stored Procedure to local text SQL query.
> 2. Add an auto-incrementing identity field to the database.
> Has to do both. Neither worked by itself.
>
|||I added a new column. I confess I didn't try making InternetID an identity.
That might have worked.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> Another thing you might try is adding Exception, OLEDB Errors and Attention
> events to the trace. Out of curiosity, did you change the existing
> InternetID column to an IDENTITY or did you add a new column?
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1D4547FA-94AE-466C-ABE5-741FA72D2970@.microsoft.com...
>
|||>I added a new column. I confess I didn't try making InternetID an
>identity.
> That might have worked.
I was curious about the data in the InternetID and the new IDENTITY column.
Does the InternetID still increment by 2? What about the IDENTITY col?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B59141B9-485E-4BDC-969A-3CC1B23950D0@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I added a new column. I confess I didn't try making InternetID an
>identity.
> That might have worked.
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
|||No, now that I'm using a text query in ASP.NET instead of a stored procedure,
and now that I have the identity column in the table, the INSERTs work as
expected. The identity column increments by 1, as does InternetID (if
sequential customers both create an account, which is what this table is for).
So by changing those two things, I must have somehow worked around an issue
that I don't understand, or perhaps an obscure bug.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> I was curious about the data in the InternetID and the new IDENTITY column.
> Does the InternetID still increment by 2? What about the IDENTITY col?
>

Alternating INSERTs fail

In SQL Server 7, I have a stored procedure that does a simple INSERT. I cal
l
it from ASP.NET.
It only succeeds every other time (i.e. alternating). No error is returned
when it doesn't work. A return value of 1 is always returned for both cases
(indicating 1 row affected) but the new data row simply isn't there exactly
every other time, alternating.
I even ran a trace, and I can see both inserts happen , and nothing else
comes along to delete any of the rows. But the problem persists.
The only difference that I see in the trace is the number of reads, and a
longer duration in the one that succeeds (the second one):
Event Class Object ID Database ID Text Application Name NT User Name SQL
User Name CPU Reads Writes Duration Connectio
n ID SPID Start Time
+RPC:Completed 9 InsertAccountLogin 377864, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
.Net SqlClient Data Provider sa 0 4 0 0 22591 20 14:57:14.380
Event Class Object ID Database ID Text Application Name NT User Name SQL
User Name CPU Reads Writes Duration Connectio
n ID SPID Start Time
+RPC:Completed 9 InsertAccountLogin 377865, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
.Net SqlClient Data Provider sa 0 3 0 17 22591 20 14:57:30.223
Can anyone suggest some more troubleshooting steps I can take here?
I've tried it with the stored procedure as:
================================
CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
Begin Transaction
Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
(@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
COMMIT Transaction
================================
and also
================================
CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
(@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
================================
Thanks,
Greg HolmesYou might try adding the sp:statement completed event to the trace. Do you
have any triggers on the table?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:26B9E0DA-EFF4-4371-A14A-E3EF007FDD1F@.microsoft.com...
> In SQL Server 7, I have a stored procedure that does a simple INSERT. I
> call
> it from ASP.NET.
> It only succeeds every other time (i.e. alternating). No error is
> returned
> when it doesn't work. A return value of 1 is always returned for both
> cases
> (indicating 1 row affected) but the new data row simply isn't there
> exactly
> every other time, alternating.
> I even ran a trace, and I can see both inserts happen , and nothing else
> comes along to delete any of the rows. But the problem persists.
> The only difference that I see in the trace is the number of reads, and a
> longer duration in the one that succeeds (the second one):
> Event Class Object ID Database ID Text Application Name NT User Name SQL
> User Name CPU Reads Writes Duration Connection ID SPID Start Time
> +RPC:Completed 9 InsertAccountLogin 377864, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
> .Net SqlClient Data Provider sa 0 4 0 0 22591 20 14:57:14.380
>
> Event Class Object ID Database ID Text Application Name NT User Name SQL
> User Name CPU Reads Writes Duration Connection ID SPID Start Time
> +RPC:Completed 9 InsertAccountLogin 377865, N'Dec12-Test7', N'Dec12-Test'
> .Net SqlClient Data Provider sa 0 3 0 17 22591 20 14:57:30.223
> Can anyone suggest some more troubleshooting steps I can take here?
>
> I've tried it with the stored procedure as:
> ================================
> CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
> char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
> Begin Transaction
> Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
> (@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
> COMMIT Transaction
> ================================
> and also
>
> ================================
> CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAccountLogin @.InternetID as int, @.UserName as
> char(40), @.Password as char(15) AS
> Insert into AccountLogin (InternetID, UserName, Password) Values
> (@.InternetID, @.UserName, @.Password)
> ================================
>
> Thanks,
> Greg Holmes|||"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> You might try adding the sp:statement completed event to the trace. Do yo
u
> have any triggers on the table?
Thanks Dan. I added statement completed to the trace, but all that did was
add a
"sp:statement completed" line before each RPC line for the INSERTs. Those
"sp:statement completed" lines look identical.
This is so weird. The first field in the insert should be incrementing by
1s (by the ASP.NET application), but you can look at the rows and watch it g
o
up by 2s. I also added an auto incrementing field to the table and you can
watch the phenomenon there too ("1", "3", "5", etc.). It's actually
incrementing the auto-incrementing field, but not leaving a row in the
database, every other time.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:26B9E0DA-EFF4-4371-A14A-E3EF007FDD1F@.microsoft.com...|||And I forgot to add - there are no triggers on the table.
"greg.holmes" wrote:

> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>
> Thanks Dan. I added statement completed to the trace, but all that did wa
s
> add a
> "sp:statement completed" line before each RPC line for the INSERTs. Those
> "sp:statement completed" lines look identical.
> This is so weird. The first field in the insert should be incrementing by
> 1s (by the ASP.NET application), but you can look at the rows and watch it
go
> up by 2s. I also added an auto incrementing field to the table and you ca
n
> watch the phenomenon there too ("1", "3", "5", etc.). It's actually
> incrementing the auto-incrementing field, but not leaving a row in the
> database, every other time.
>
>|||OK, here's the only thing that worked to remedy this - as you might expect,
my confidence in the robustness of this solution is low!
1. Switch from using Stored Procedure to local text SQL query.
2. Add an auto-incrementing identity field to the database.
Has to do both. Neither worked by itself.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> "greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:26B9E0DA-EFF4-4371-A14A-E3EF007FDD1F@.microsoft.com...|||Another thing you might try is adding Exception, OLEDB Errors and Attention
events to the trace. Out of curiosity, did you change the existing
InternetID column to an IDENTITY or did you add a new column?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1D4547FA-94AE-466C-ABE5-741FA72D2970@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> OK, here's the only thing that worked to remedy this - as you might
> expect,
> my confidence in the robustness of this solution is low!
> 1. Switch from using Stored Procedure to local text SQL query.
> 2. Add an auto-incrementing identity field to the database.
> Has to do both. Neither worked by itself.
>|||I added a new column. I confess I didn't try making InternetID an identity.
That might have worked.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> Another thing you might try is adding Exception, OLEDB Errors and Attentio
n
> events to the trace. Out of curiosity, did you change the existing
> InternetID column to an IDENTITY or did you add a new column?
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1D4547FA-94AE-466C-ABE5-741FA72D2970@.microsoft.com...
>|||>I added a new column. I confess I didn't try making InternetID an
>identity.
> That might have worked.
I was curious about the data in the InternetID and the new IDENTITY column.
Does the InternetID still increment by 2? What about the IDENTITY col?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"greg.holmes" <gregholmes@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B59141B9-485E-4BDC-969A-3CC1B23950D0@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I added a new column. I confess I didn't try making InternetID an
>identity.
> That might have worked.
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>|||No, now that I'm using a text query in ASP.NET instead of a stored procedure
,
and now that I have the identity column in the table, the INSERTs work as
expected. The identity column increments by 1, as does InternetID (if
sequential customers both create an account, which is what this table is for
).
So by changing those two things, I must have somehow worked around an issue
that I don't understand, or perhaps an obscure bug.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> I was curious about the data in the InternetID and the new IDENTITY column
.
> Does the InternetID still increment by 2? What about the IDENTITY col?
>sql

Alternate Synchronisation Partner

I am using merge replication and trying to configure an alternate
synchronisation partner (ASP). My topology is V-shape and replication is
working OK as long as I do not perform a sync of the subscriber with the ASP.
My subscription contains articles having identity columns managed by merge
replication, and this is casuing me some grief due to error 'Violation of
PRIMARY KEY constraint...Cannot insert duplicate key in object
'MSrepl_identity_range'.'. For ASP, it is not possible to have different
publications to that of the Primary publisher, hence disabling automatic
range management is not an option. Does anyone have an answer to this problem?
Also, does anyone know if it is possible to implement redundancy with merge
replication, similar to a peer-to-peer topology available with transactional
replication in SQL Server 2005?
Paul
MCDBA, MCSE
ASP do not provide redundancy to merge replication topologies. What they do
is allow a merge subscriber to connect with another publisher if the main
publisher goes offline for a brief time. It is unable to parcel out new
identity ranges.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Paul Mu" <PaulMu@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51DAB05E-232F-4FF0-A89D-2B7EF6859258@.microsoft.com...
> I am using merge replication and trying to configure an alternate
> synchronisation partner (ASP). My topology is V-shape and replication is
> working OK as long as I do not perform a sync of the subscriber with the
ASP.
> My subscription contains articles having identity columns managed by merge
> replication, and this is casuing me some grief due to error 'Violation of
> PRIMARY KEY constraint...Cannot insert duplicate key in object
> 'MSrepl_identity_range'.'. For ASP, it is not possible to have different
> publications to that of the Primary publisher, hence disabling automatic
> range management is not an option. Does anyone have an answer to this
problem?
> Also, does anyone know if it is possible to implement redundancy with
merge
> replication, similar to a peer-to-peer topology available with
transactional
> replication in SQL Server 2005?
> --
> Paul
> MCDBA, MCSE

Alter View permission?

MSDN says the following at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...rl=/library/en-
us/tsqlref/ts_aa-az_2gtz.asp:
"ALTER VIEW permissions default to members of the db_owner and
db_ddladmin fixed database roles, and to the view owner. These
permissions are not transferable.
To alter a view, the user must have ALTER VIEW permission along with
SELECT permission on the tables, views, and table-valued functions being
referenced in the view, ..."
The BOL documentation for GRANT doesn't show ALTER VIEW as a permissible
statement type to grant permissions on. Trying to GRANT ALTER VIEW
doesn't work. How can I give a user ALTER VIEW permission? Does "not
transferable" mean I can't?
Thanks.
David WalkerYou can add the user to the db_owner or db_ddladmin fixed database roles.
AMB
"DWalker" wrote:

> MSDN says the following at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...rl=/library/en-
> us/tsqlref/ts_aa-az_2gtz.asp:
> "ALTER VIEW permissions default to members of the db_owner and
> db_ddladmin fixed database roles, and to the view owner. These
> permissions are not transferable.
> To alter a view, the user must have ALTER VIEW permission along with
> SELECT permission on the tables, views, and table-valued functions being
> referenced in the view, ..."
> The BOL documentation for GRANT doesn't show ALTER VIEW as a permissible
> statement type to grant permissions on. Trying to GRANT ALTER VIEW
> doesn't work. How can I give a user ALTER VIEW permission? Does "not
> transferable" mean I can't?
> Thanks.
> David Walker
>|||I ran across the DDLAdmin role, but BOL makes it sound like you can
grant ALTER VIEW permissions. Maybe I'm misreading it -- I suppose
those permissions are only given to members of db_owner and db_ddladmin,
and they can't be granted to anyone else.
The phrase "ALTER VIEW permissions default to members of the db_owner
and db_ddladmin fixed database roles" should have "default to" replaced
by "are restricted to" if that's the case.
It would be nice to be able to grant ALTER VIEW permission on one view
to one user or role.
Thanks, AlejandroMesa.
David Walker
"examnotes"
<AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:668F79B3-3335-4BC3-860F-67F467C12CEF@.microsoft.com:

> You can add the user to the db_owner or db_ddladmin fixed database
> roles.
>
> AMB
> "DWalker" wrote:
>
>|||You cannot give a user (that is not member of db_owner and db_ddladmin
fixed dabase roles) the permission to alter a specific view (that he
does not own). This is exactly what "not transferable" means (at least,
this is what it means to me).
As I see it, you have the following alternatives:
a) make the user a member of db_ddladmin role: this will enable him to
make any modification to the objects in the database, including
creating and deleting other objects (tables, views, procedures, etc)
b) grant the user the "CREATE VIEW" permission; the views that are
created by him will be will be owned by him, and so he will be able to
modify them
c) create the views in his name, by prefixing them with his user name
instead of "dbo" (without granting him the "CREATE VIEW" permission).
He will be able to modify those views (and to delete them), but he
won't be able to create new views (or other objects).
The problem with the b) and c) alternatives is that only that user will
be able to access those views by specifying only the view's name (the
other users must prefix the view's name with the user name).
Razvan|||It would be NICE if I could grant a user permission to alter a specific
view, but we'll take what we can get...
I'll probably add the user to the ddladmin role, although that's more
power than I would like to give. But the other choices aren't great
either. Thanks.
David
"Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in
news:1112639463.986674.297650@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> You cannot give a user (that is not member of db_owner and db_ddladmin
> fixed dabase roles) the permission to alter a specific view (that he
> does not own). This is exactly what "not transferable" means (at
> least, this is what it means to me).
> As I see it, you have the following alternatives:
> a) make the user a member of db_ddladmin role: this will enable him to
> make any modification to the objects in the database, including
> creating and deleting other objects (tables, views, procedures, etc)
> b) grant the user the "CREATE VIEW" permission; the views that are
> created by him will be will be owned by him, and so he will be able to
> modify them
> c) create the views in his name, by prefixing them with his user name
> instead of "dbo" (without granting him the "CREATE VIEW" permission).
> He will be able to modify those views (and to delete them), but he
> won't be able to create new views (or other objects).
> The problem with the b) and c) alternatives is that only that user
> will be able to access those views by specifying only the view's name
> (the other users must prefix the view's name with the user name).
> Razvan
>

Alter Stored Procedure with asp.net code

I have looked all around and I am having no luck trying to figure out how to alter a stored procedure within an asp.net application.

Here is a short snippet of my code, but it keeps erroring out on me.

Try
myCommand.CommandText = "Using " & DatabaseName & vbNewLine & Me.txtStoredProcedures.Text
myCommand.ExecuteNonQuery()
myTran.Commit()
Catch ex As Exception
myTran.Rollback()
Response.Write(ex.ToString())
End Try

The reason for this is because I have to propagate stored procedures across many databases and was hoping to write an application for it.

Basically the database name is coming from a loop statement and I just want to keep on going through all the databases that I have chosen and have the stored procedure updated (altered) automatically

So i thought the code above was close, but it keeps catching on me. Anybody's help would be greatly appreciated!!!

This is one of the things that make stored procedures a maintenance nightmare.

It should be "USE", not "USING". It may be an idea to use separate connections or at least to execute the USE statement separately.

|||

Well, I changed it to Use (I should have seen that already) and still got nothing. I did try to do one stored proc at a time, but it kept catching on me. Any other ideas?

|||

Why not just run the stored procedure create/update within Query Analyser / SQL Server Management Studio?

Allowing null dates

My users want to be able to enter nothing in a date field.

I'm using asp.net v2, vb.net, and VS 2005 for my application. I'm not sure what to do or what code to write to allow the user not to enter a date and keep from hitting the sqldatetime overflow error.

I could use some help.

Thanks

If the application variable/control value for the datatime value is empty (EmptyString), your application should set the input parameter to SqlType.dbNull -NOT the input control.text value.

|||

Thank you.

I figured out I needed to write that code in my business logic layer. I know this is an issue with a lot of people. Here is how I solved my problem.

I set the variable to Nullable (of DateTime)

And made the following check

If Not fldIntake.HasValue Then ClientApp.SetfldIntakeNull() Else ClientApp.fldIntake = fldIntake.Value

Allow iis to connect to a sql express database

Folks,

I have an asp.net web app developed in visual studio 2005. The app works fine with the development server from visual studio and sql express. When I try to test the app under IIS before deploying to my host I get a permission not allowed message.

"[SqlException (0x80131904): User does not have permission to perform this action.]".

How do I give my web app access to my sql server database?

Thanks

Doug

These references should help:

Web Applications -Connect to SQL Server
Configuring an ASP.NET 2.0 Application to Work with Microsoft SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005
http://imar.spaanjaars.com/QuickDocId.aspx?quickdoc=395
How To: Create a Service Account for an ASP.NET 2.0 Application
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998297.aspx
How To: Connect to SQL Server Using Windows Authentication in ASP.NET 2.0
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998300.aspx

Allow iis to connect to a sql express database

Folks,

I have an asp.net web app developed in visual studio 2005. The app works fine with the development server from visual studio and sql express. When I try to test the app under IIS before deploying to my host I get a permission not allowed message.

"[SqlException (0x80131904): User does not have permission to perform this action.]".

How do I give my web app access to my sql server database?

Thanks

Doug

These references should help:

Web Applications -Connect to SQL Server
Configuring an ASP.NET 2.0 Application to Work with Microsoft SQL Server 2000 or SQL Server 2005
http://imar.spaanjaars.com/QuickDocId.aspx?quickdoc=395
How To: Create a Service Account for an ASP.NET 2.0 Application
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998297.aspx
How To: Connect to SQL Server Using Windows Authentication in ASP.NET 2.0
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998300.aspx

all the data coming from sql unreadable like this one (CC?E C?CI?)

all the data coming from sql unreadable like this one (C?C?E C'CI')
If you go to this page http://72.41.53.93/new_index.asp
you can see the Arabic character which is typed in the page coming
correctly.
while , on the other hand , the one comes form database comes
unreadable ?EEC? OE?E
Please I need your help , I do not want to lose my data in sql.Hi
How do you store arabic characters in the database?
I mean have you defined NAVARCHAR(n) daratype forther column/s?
<malbar99@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144919506.830104.45910@.t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> all the data coming from sql unreadable like this one (C?C?E C'CI')
> If you go to this page http://72.41.53.93/new_index.asp
> you can see the Arabic character which is typed in the page coming
> correctly.
> while , on the other hand , the one comes form database comes
> unreadable ?EEC? OE?E
> Please I need your help , I do not want to lose my data in sql.
>