Of course I read this.  That's why I said what I said regarding no personal attacks or anything like that.  My statement is negative feedback towards the lack of helpful input from your end, so I don't understand why you would remove that.

You disrespect us, your customers, when you do not provide quality support and feedback and waste our time.  You should really head your own signature of "Providing the most excellent technical support for Intersoft customers. Your satisfaction is our success." because so far that hasn't been the case from my perspective.  And when I say "you" I mean InterSoft and not you personally.

Hello again,

I trust your statement doesn't base on fact. Simply put, let's see how superior our support has provided the excellence solution for you. Goto http://www.intersoftpt.com/Community/Users/PRISMAY/, notice you have posted around 20+ questions, and about 95% of them are answered. I trust you'll agree that 95% is very decent enough, compared to any other vendors.

Having that said, yes, our support is striving for the best satisfaction for all our customers. And your number of answered posts reflected it. Certainly, we'll thrive to get 100% of your posts answered.

Thanks again for pointing this out, and thus enabling the issue to be cleared professionaly.

[stop modifying the language of my posts.  Nothing was said that was out of line.  If you can't handle negative feedback, then close the forum.  There's no personal attack just factual statements.]  

Hello Yousif,

Unfortunately, you have to be bound according to our agreement in order to use the forum. I trust you have checked the "I have read the terms and agreement" during registration.

Here let me paste to you again the important points in a community forum.

I hope you can be cooperative by using positive and constructive language in polite manner.

Thank you very much for your understanding in this matter.

Flash videos would be great! Looking forward to it, thanks.

Yousif, I understand your point that you desire the numbering to be same within a row context. However, that is not the way how the template works. I believe the detailed information on how the template works is beyond our scope here -- the bottomline is, each cell has its own templated container, and thus each cell has its own ID, in such case, the ID is automatically generated by ASP.NET. Eg, ctl00 represents the container for CellA, while ctl01 represents the container for CellB.

That said, your desire to have the same controlID for both CellA and CellB is simply not possible (referring to your first post) because as we understand how the template works thus far, each cell requires its own unique template container, and thus automatically resulting in different ID when rendered by ASP.NET.

As such, I don't see where the inconsistent problem is, since the ID is properly incremented based on row-to-cell ordering. Again, the ID increment process has been discussed above and I hope you've understood it completely.

Let me know if you have any questions or other feedback. Thank you.

PS: If you're able to come up with a sample that shows the inconsistency issue which is based on the correct understanding on template process described above, please send over the sample and we'll be glad to investigate it for you.

Based on TemplatedCell sample (included in WebGrid C# samples), the ControlID numbering worked fine in both first load and postback. The sample used two templated cells, and if you notice, the ID is consistently incremented based on the cell-to-row order.

As told earlier, the internal ID is maintaned automatically by ASP.NET, and the numbering sequence relies on when the template is actually created and added to the page collection. In this case, the templates are created on all cells in a row first, then the next row.

Thus, it's clear that this issue wasn't a bug, unless there's scenario where the ID is generated inconsistently.