Hello, i have successfully implemented uip 2.0 with a asp.net 1.1 application. while trying to migrate to asp.net with whidbey the compiler gives an error in the configuration (web.config). Does anybody know whats wrong?! The configuration is right an should
work. Thanks for any help! Configuration Error Description: An error occurred during the processing of a configuration file required to service this request. Please review the specific error details below and modify your configuration file appropriately. Parser
Error Message: Exception in configuration section handler web.config Wildcard '##any' allows element 'statePersistenceProvider', and causes the content model to become ambiguous. A content model must be formed such that during validation of an element information
item sequence, the particle contained directly, indirectly or implicitly therein with which to attempt to validate each item in the sequence in turn can be uniquely determined without examining the content or attributes of that item, and without any information
about the items in the remainder of the sequence.. Source Error: Line 5: Line 6: Line 7: Line 8: Line 9: Source File: web.config Line: 7 Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.40607.16; ASP.NET Version:2.0.40607.16
I had the same issue and found it has somthing to do with the ValidateSchema method of UIPConfigHandler in UIP block. I think it is related to Whidbey's System.XML changes. I haven't spent too much time on it, my guess is it is either a feature or bug in ValidatingReader.
I saw ValidatingReader is deprecated and we are suggested to use XmlReader.Create function. May be that is the solution, but it is strange why backward compatibility is broken even in Microsoft's own code. I simply returned out of this method skipping validation.
I was able to get beyond this ##any issue but have a new problem. UIP doesn't even start as I am getting an Exception in Assembly.Load function in UIP's GenericFactory.Create. If anybody from Microsoft has successfully converted an UIP ASP.NET 1.1 project
to ASP.NET 2.0, please help. If UIP is going to be dropped from the patterns, please let us know so we can figure out alternative ways.
Hi Santanbo
i experienced the same problem when trying to use uipab 2.0 with asp.net 2.0 beta 2.
would you be kind enough to elaborate on what you had to do to get it working.?
in particular i would like to know
1. were you using .net 2.0 beta 1 or 2.
2. what dev tool did you use. ( currently i am using .net 2.0 beta 2 with visual web Dev 2005 express. im still waiting for a copy of VS full 2005 beta )
3. did you have to apply any other fixes other than simply placing your controller and WebFormView derived class in a separate assembly.
your help would be much appreciated.
regards jason.
I sent email to Santanbo because I have the same problem with UIP Application Block.
Can you please explain to me in details how did you solutioned this particular problem of UIP Aplication Block? I have the same problem, with the Web.Config file, and I don´t know what to do! It appears that the Web.Config´s schema has changed from one version
to other of Asp.Net.
I just recompiled the entire framework. And I had the same problem. After some investigation a noticed that xsd sheme's in .NET 2005 are more strickter then 1.1. After examining the UIPConfigSchema.xsd I found the problem.
.NET 2005 thinks that this element <xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" processContents="skip" /> makes all other elements in that tag ambigious because you first declare that the configuration should have a iViewManager, a state, a controller and statePersitenceProvider
and then you declare that all objects are allowed.
So if you comment out or remove following rule <xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" processContents="skip" /> everything starts working.
Thanks Tannerel! This fix, combined with a workaround of using a separate assembly for the controllers (so that the DLL can be referenced in the UIP configuration) gets UIP 2.0 running on VS 2005, .NET 2.0.
Thomas Annerel. you are a genius. i cant express enough gratitude. thank-you very much.
this problem has been bugging me for months. when i first looked at this in may typing "uipab 2.0 asp.net 2.0" revealed very little. now typing that brings me directly to your excellent fix.
i still cant find anything on the ms website. does this mean that very few people are using uipab 2.0 on asp.net 2.0 or did it miss it somehow.?
Just thought I'd drop in and say that I had this same problem this week with full release .NET 2.0 as I was trying to build a win app with Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition. The above fix does not appear to have worked for me, though.
It seems Microsoft have not got around to addressing this yet or even mentioning it as a known issue (as far as I can see). One person in a different forum commented on the possibilty of the UIPAB being dropped in favour of the Composite Application Block but
so far I do not know if this is true.
I think this thread will prove to be very valuable.
alphameta
Member
5 Points
1 Post
UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Oct 08, 2004 06:53 AM|LINK
santanbo
Member
75 Points
15 Posts
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Dec 09, 2004 08:54 PM|LINK
santanbo
Member
75 Points
15 Posts
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Dec 20, 2004 10:07 PM|LINK
JasonTrott
Member
10 Points
2 Posts
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
May 26, 2005 02:59 PM|LINK
i experienced the same problem when trying to use uipab 2.0 with asp.net 2.0 beta 2.
would you be kind enough to elaborate on what you had to do to get it working.?
in particular i would like to know
1. were you using .net 2.0 beta 1 or 2.
2. what dev tool did you use. ( currently i am using .net 2.0 beta 2 with visual web Dev 2005 express. im still waiting for a copy of VS full 2005 beta )
3. did you have to apply any other fixes other than simply placing your controller and WebFormView derived class in a separate assembly.
your help would be much appreciated.
regards jason.
gustavohdv
Member
5 Points
1 Post
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Aug 26, 2005 02:05 PM|LINK
I sent email to Santanbo because I have the same problem with UIP Application Block.
Can you please explain to me in details how did you solutioned this particular problem of UIP Aplication Block? I have the same problem, with the Web.Config file, and I don´t know what to do! It appears that the Web.Config´s schema has changed from one version to other of Asp.Net.
tannerel
Member
5 Points
1 Post
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Oct 13, 2005 08:01 AM|LINK
Hey
I just recompiled the entire framework. And I had the same problem. After some investigation a noticed that xsd sheme's in .NET 2005 are more strickter then 1.1. After examining the UIPConfigSchema.xsd I found the problem.
.NET 2005 thinks that this element <xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" processContents="skip" /> makes all other elements in that tag ambigious because you first declare that the configuration should have a iViewManager, a state, a controller and statePersitenceProvider and then you declare that all objects are allowed.
So if you comment out or remove following rule <xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" processContents="skip" /> everything starts working.
You'll need to rebuild the UIP 2.0 framework
Kind regards Thomas Annerel
Example file:
<xs:element name="objectTypes" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="iViewManager" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence></xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="default" type="xs:boolean" default="false" use="optional" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="state" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence />
<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="default" type="xs:boolean" default="false" use="optional" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="controller" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence></xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:string" use="required" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="statePersistenceProvider" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence></xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="type" type="xs:string" use="required" />
<xs:attribute name="default" type="xs:boolean" default="false" use="optional" />
<xs:anyAttribute processContents="skip" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<!-- <xs:any maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" processContents="skip" /> -->
</xs:sequence>
<xs:anyAttribute processContents="skip" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
Channa
Member
5 Points
1 Post
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Oct 27, 2005 11:32 AM|LINK
JasonTrott
Member
10 Points
2 Posts
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Jan 20, 2006 04:08 PM|LINK
Thomas Annerel. you are a genius. i cant express enough gratitude. thank-you very much.
this problem has been bugging me for months. when i first looked at this in may typing "uipab 2.0 asp.net 2.0" revealed very little. now typing that brings me directly to your excellent fix.
i still cant find anything on the ms website. does this mean that very few people are using uipab 2.0 on asp.net 2.0 or did it miss it somehow.?
thanks once again. im indebted to you.
kind regards Jason Trott.
dotsha
Member
5 Points
1 Post
Re: UIP 2.0 with ASP.NET 2.0 / Whidbey
Feb 14, 2006 05:24 AM|LINK
Hi,
I have done UIP 2.0 in asp.net 1.1 but whaen I try to do in asp.net 2.0 It is throwing a error that Assembly Can not load.........
can u please send a Sample which is u done UIP 2.0 with asp.net 2.0 to dotsha@gmail.com please do the needful..........
mjtech
Member
160 Points
32 Posts
UIP 2.0 with NET 2.0
Mar 16, 2006 10:11 PM|LINK
It seems Microsoft have not got around to addressing this yet or even mentioning it as a known issue (as far as I can see). One person in a different forum commented on the possibilty of the UIPAB being dropped in favour of the Composite Application Block but so far I do not know if this is true.
I think this thread will prove to be very valuable.