This is the error:  Error 30366: 'Public Property BatchAgency() As String'
and 'Public WriteOnly Property BatchAgency() As String' cannot overload each
other because they differ only by 'ReadOnly' or 'WriteOnly'.

I'm confused b/c none of the fields are set up as 'ReadOnly'.  I've checked
the Input & Output Columns and everything seems to be ok there.

Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

I'm new to using Visual Studio (2005)  with VB and I've recently taken over a
project started by someone else.  The basic process is to retrieve a file
from an ftp server, load the data into SQL Server (2005) tables, summarize
the data - creating a new file to put on the mainframe.  There are steps
included that print reports as well.  The problem is an error I get for each
field when attempting to upload the data into the db tables.

This is the error:  Error 30366: 'Public Property BatchAgency() As String'
and 'Public WriteOnly Property BatchAgency() As String' cannot overload each
other because they differ only by 'ReadOnly' or 'WriteOnly'.

I'm confused b/c none of the fields are set up as 'ReadOnly'.  I've checked
the Input & Output Columns and everything seems to be ok there.

Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Try posting your question to the Visual Basic (.NET) General forum:

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vbgeneral/threads

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

| Try posting your question to the Visual Basic (.NET) General forum:
|
| http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vbgeneral/threads
|

  It would be kinder to clarify that suggestion:

  Microsoft would like people to switch to their
unusable, web-based muck because they can
moderate it and turn it into a marketing device.
But the news (usenet) sites are still available
for use by anyone with any sense.

  Woops. I mean they're available for anyone who
has difficulty discovering an optimized help
experience at social.msdn.microsoft.com.  :)

| Try posting your question to the Visual Basic (.NET) General forum:
|
| http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vbgeneral/threads
|

  It would be kinder to clarify that suggestion:

  Microsoft would like people to switch to their
unusable, web-based muck because they can
moderate it and turn it into a marketing device.
But the news (usenet) sites are still available
for use by anyone with any sense.

Not sure where you have seen the marketing stuff. They support it just as they did the NNTP
newsgroups, although there appears to be more Microsoft presence. Certainly don't mind the
moderation. The pointless flame wars and backbiting are minimal to non-existent.

Unusable? Why do some find web forums so challenging? ;-)

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

:
:  It would be kinder to clarify that suggestion:
:
:  Microsoft would like people to switch to their
: unusable, web-based muck because they can
: moderate it and turn it into a marketing device.
: But the news (usenet) sites are still available
: for use by anyone with any sense.
:
:  Woops. I mean they're available for anyone who
: has difficulty discovering an optimized help
: experience at social.msdn.microsoft.com.  :)

You left out the part that Paul only gets post counts towards the mvp quota on the web based forum, so naturally he wants credit for his time and effort.  Otherwise the usenet .nxt forums are worthless, evident by the lack of mvp participation there.  Ah, if only it were truly about helping others instead fo status and stipends.  <g>

  Unfortunately, though, in addition to being a
very poor layout compared to usenet, one has to
get a "Live ID" (the mark of the Beast?) in order
to take part. That's rather creepy.

:  Unfortunately, though, in addition to being a
: very poor layout compared to usenet, one has to
: get a "Live ID" (the mark of the Beast?) in order
: to take part. That's rather creepy.

Windows Mail w/Vista has those "vote" options tied into Usenet...at least on the msnews server.  LiveID also required.  I didn't bother.  <g>

Hmmmm, nope...  Marketing fail!

http://www.*-*-*.com/

http://www.*-*-*.com/

Btw, who's "Paul P Clement IV", your boy?

--
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://www.*-*-*.com/

Norm

> Not sure where you have seen the marketing stuff.

No corporate logos?  This I gotta see!

Hmmmm, nope...  Marketing fail!

http://www.*-*-*.com/

http://www.*-*-*.com/

Yeah, the fact they use an MSDN logo (they are MSDN forums) and a Bing search box is shameful. How
dare they implement such subliminal marketing tactics. ;-)

> They support it just as
> they did the NNTP newsgroups,

Not exactly a ringing endor{*filter*}t, either.

Well I guess you'd actually have to be there. ;-)

> Certainly don't mind the moderation. The pointless flame wars and
> backbiting are minimal to non-existent.

I imagine you'd prefer that, yeah.  Another fail.

It shouldn't surprise me that you wouldn't. Fail for you.

> Unusable? Why do some find web forums so challenging? ;-)

One word: statefulness.

How does that apply?

Btw, who's "Paul P Clement IV", your boy?

No, c'est moi.

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

|
| > Unusable? Why do some find web forums so challenging? ;-)
|
| One word: statefulness.
|
| How does that apply?
|

   I'm not sure what Karl means by that either,
unless he's just talking about the ease of
data download. Or maybe he's referring to new
posts being visibly distinguishable on Usenet?

  In any case, I see plenty of problems:

* Awarding medals makes no sense for people out of
the first grade. It's childish. The reason here, however,
is insidious.

* Ditto for "voting". It just creates peer pressure and
juvenile behavior. It's used on opinion pages of
commercial sites to generate traffic. The people
at Microsoft apparently just didn't think it through
before copying that format.

* A commercially-hosted web forum is naturally problematic.
The marketing is "baked in". It's like a "beemer" club
(remember those? :) meeting at a BMW showroom
rather than at a parking lot. They're surrounded by
ads and the salesmen are moderating the discussion.

   The moderating MVPs exert control with passive-
aggressive niceties: "Thank you so much for your
contribution, and welcome to the forums, but you're
wrong." They are *moderators*. They're in charge by
definition. Their filtering decisions and the hierarchical
authority structure are, in themselves, marketing. The
fact that their posts are festooned with more medals
than an Olympic swimming champion can't help but
affect the judgement of new people. And if Microsoft
phases out Usenet for new groups then there will be
no place for unmoderated discussions.

    All of those problems are aside from the one, basic
problem: A webpage forum does not work well. In Usenet
I see all message titles for the past few weeks. I can
easily navigate sub-threads. I can easily see where new
messages are. On a webpage all posts to a thread appear
in posting order -- just a long, long line going down the
page. An 8-post sub-thread chat is indistinguishable from
the meatier posts. The thread can't be surveyed as a
whole. ....And all that's only if I find the thread in the first
place. The webpage layout takes up a lot of space and
makes it difficult to see what's been posted.

   Then there's script. Microsoft's current layout uses a
minimum of script, which is nice, but some functionality
is missing with script disabled. Given that script is
required for nearly every malware attack online, I find
it idiotic that I should enable script for a forum when
there's no need to. (That's the elephant in the room
with the cloud fad. It can never be safe.)

   I find an interesting pattern when I go looking for
information. Many people don't know about newsgroups.
But a lot of the information out there is coming from
newsgroups. Usenet is like a sort of secret royalty in
the information world, with the mainstream getting
Usenet posts via Usenet-repackaging sites they find
through Google.

   Anyway, I know that you, Paul, will probably just
respond  with a string of ;)-puncuated wisecracks. Your
blissfully impervious to reasoned discussion. I'm not
really addressing this to you. I'm posting it in the hope
that some of the people here using Google Groups,
because they don't know any better, might discover
Usenet.

|
| > Unusable? Why do some find web forums so challenging? ;-)
|
| One word: statefulness.
|
| How does that apply?
|

  <snip>

   Anyway, I know that you, Paul, will probably just
respond  with a string of ;)-puncuated wisecracks. Your
blissfully impervious to reasoned discussion. I'm not
really addressing this to you. I'm posting it in the hope
that some of the people here using Google Groups,
because they don't know any better, might discover
Usenet.

Well, actually I agree with some of what you say but perhaps that's because I'm "blissfully
impervious to reasoned discussion". (Uh oh, a wisecrack). ;-)

I don't really care much about the marking of answers, points, medals etc. As a matter of fact I
bailed on Experts Exchange because of their silly points system. I'm certainly glad that Microsoft
didn't implement the same mechanism, but I could still live without the other stuff as well. I tend
to focus on quality and not quantity anyway. Always have.

Some things work better in NNTP and some things work better in web forums. I'm not picking a
favorite and I'm not refusing to use or dismissing one for the sake of the other. Quite obviously
I'm capable of using both (sound familiar?) I've used CompuServe as well as some of the old bulletin
board systems (w/Qmodem). There were advantages and disadvantages to using all of them.

Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

--
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org