I am try to populate the treenodes dynamically from database so I am able to do that in treeview of VS 2005 but with Ultra tree its displayinge me just the parent nodes.what can be the reason?? and I switched to ultratree because I will be displaying 4 columns as child nodes whcih can be modified (edit)....so how will I be able to do that I am a newbee....so please if possible explain me in detail .Thanks
This code works for populating the child node for a simple treeview but not for ultratreeview
TreeNode mainNode = new TreeNode(); mainNode.Text = "Eserver"; this.ultraTree1.Nodes.Add(mainNode.Text); foreach (DataRow row in Eset.Tables[0].Rows) { TreeNode newNode = new TreeNode(); foreach (DataRow rowchild in row.GetChildRows("RelEntLic")) { TreeNode childNode = new TreeNode(); childNode.Text = rowchild["YearsBack"].ToString(); childNode.Tag = rowchild["EntitlementSetID"]; newNode.Nodes.Add(childNode); } newNode.Text = row["FullDeatilsESet"].ToString(); newNode.Tag = row["EntitlementSetID"]; //newNode.SelectedImageIndex this.ultraTree1.Nodes[0].Nodes.Add(newNode.Text); }
It sounds like the easiest thing for you to do in this case would be to bind the tree to your DataSet using the SetDataBinding method. Then the tree would automatically build the ColumnSets for you and display parent and child tables.
There are lots of samples installed with NetAdvantage.
I have not got too far ..Is there a sample code I can refer too ,,,,you are correct I have to display the columns from a specific table but based on the parent node I am using relation to relate parentnode [EntitlementsSetID] from table ESERVER to child node [EntitlementSetID] from Table LIC_ENT now I have to display all 4 columns form this child table [LIC_ENT] which a user can edit. I am Using it first time demo vesion ..if it works out i will buy it. Thanks
What ViewStyle are you using for your tree?
If you are showing multiple column, then how are you creating your ColumnSets?Or did you not get that far, yet?
If you want the tree to show data from a data table, why not simply bind it, rather than copying the data?