|
No, I'm not a local admin... Hence the inability to run a defrag. I think I'm in there as a "Power User"... Hard to tell, as I can't access the users/accounts config.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want faster development yes. Every time you put up a wall you slow down progress. Reverse the question and ask: Is it really a problem if my developer has admin access on his local machine? I mean, is it the development team that is bringing in these viruses/bad progs? Developers are usually pretty computer savvy, so sometimes I find this argument hard to swallow. Maybe anti-virus would be a better solution than locking access?
If you can't think of why this would be a problem, then why put up roadblocks? Here, your suggestions are wholly adding to the cost of development, and decreasing efficiency. Are viruses that prevalent in your network?
A user can be an admin on their machine and still have restricted access to other machines, and that may be a more viable solution.
|
|
|
|
|
This would really depend on how "in the weeds" your developers are getting. As a developer I find myself installing and removing applications almost every other day for integration testing and evaluating new development tools. In addition, I have occasion to stop and start services on my development box when things go haywire. Editing and removing registry entries is not uncommon as well. All of these are much easier with local admin rights.
If your developers are doing simple web development (HTML, Javascript, Flash..etc) then they probably don't need admin access. However, any of the higher languages (Java, C/C++, C#, Perl...etc) I would definitely recommend admin access.
One solution I have seen to your dilemma is install virtual environments. This allows the developers to create their own machines with what ever rights they want, while still controlling the actual hardware. Unfortunately, the virtual env. tends to be slower and can affect compile and testing times.
My guess is that your virus scares were not on the developer boxes, they tend to be more careful than your average user. This fight is not uncommon.
modified on Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I have a data model where each record has a "next version pointer" to track updates to the items. As it stands now, the object looks something like this:
Public MustInherit Class VersionedDataObject(Of T As VersionedDataObject(Of T))
Private _next As T
Public Property NextVersion() As T
Get
Return _next
End Get
Set(ByVal value As T)
If value Is _next Then Exit Property
_next = value
If _next Is Nothing Then
_nextVersions = Nothing
Else
_nextVersions = New NextVersionIterator(Me)
End If
End Set
End Property
Private _nextVersions As IEnumerable(Of T)
Public ReadOnly Property NextVersions() As IEnumerable(Of T)
Get
Return _nextVersions
End Get
End Property
End Class
The question is, when NextVersion is Nothing, would you return Nothing from NextVersions (as I am doing now) or an IEnumerable with no items?
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you look at what .NET does itself, e.g. the methods operating on a Queue, such as Dequeue.
Luc Pattyn
I only read code that is properly indented, and rendered in a non-proportional font; hint: use PRE tags in forum messages
|
|
|
|
|
Not a bad idea. My object does not directly implement IEnumerable like Queue or List (and isn't a 'collection' type of object), so I'll have to look for other objects to find some examples. For now I think I will go with suggestion from the other response.
|
|
|
|
|
I would return an empty enumerable from NextVersions. That way, the consumer of this property does not have to include a test for whether the IEnumerable is Nothing, but can just go ahead use it. If it's empty, then the iteration over the enumerator will simply do nothing. That makes life simpler for the person using your VersionedDataObject and takes away the risk of getting a NullReferenceException when someone forgets to check for Nothing. So, you can just do something like:
For Each version In myVersionedObject.NextVersions
' do something with version
Next
|
|
|
|
|
I think I will go with this approach. Like you said, it gives less room for error ("pit of success" and all that).
|
|
|
|
|
The concept of Run to Completion means, at least as it pertains to classes, that a method must run to its end before another method can be called on the same object. Adhering to this rule makes it easier to reason about a class's state.
I've often seen examples of this rule being broken or just ignored. How often does a class call one of its methods in the middle of another method? I've done this many times, and I've seen code authored by others do the same thing. As long as the method being called is read-only, I don't think RTC is being violated. But when it's a write method, I've wondered if this isn't an indication of a code smell.
I was looking at Sams Teach Yourself Object Oriented Programming in 21 Days. In the book is a step-by-step example of designing an object oriented blackjack game. Here's an excerpt of part of the code from that example:
public void play(Dealer dealer)
{
while(!isBusted() && hit())
{
dealer.hit(this);
}
}
public void addCard(Card card)
{
hand.addCard(card);
notifyListeners();
}
public boolean isBusted()
{
return hand.isBusted();
}
public void hit(Player player)
{
player.addCard(cards.dealUp());
}
There's a circular nature to this design which doesn't sit well with me. But setting that aside, what I want to get at is what the player class is up to in the play method. This method passes its instance to the Dealer which in turn calls the Players addCard method. This method adds a card to the player's hand. Back in the play method, the loop checks to see if the hand is busted. It's depending on the Dealer to make a change in its state elsewhere.
I don't know; maybe there's nothing wrong with this approach. It just seems fragmented to me. The play method is depending on state changes made via another method that it expects to be called while it (the play method) is still executing.
I'm not sure how I would approach this, but I was curious as to whether anyone else sees anything wrong with this.
|
|
|
|
|
We have an application which is run as a Windows Service. This application uses a dll that implements some business logic.
The service is running fine and now we have implemented some new business logic in this dll. None of the other dependencies have changed. The application remains unchanged. My question now is:
Do we have to recompile the application and reinstall the service? My personal view would be NO. Am I right?
A quick feedback would be much appreciated.
Thanks/RB
|
|
|
|
|
1. If the service will find every function with the same parameters, he will need, in this dll, then
you do not have to recompile or reinstall the service. It should run as before.
2. If you change some code of the dll, so that you have to change the code of your service.
Its normally enough to recompile the service. You do not have to reinstall it.
Greetings
Covean
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no need of reinstalling of window service there......
But Question regarding business components... depending upon the type of assembly... if it is deployed in GAC... there is not need to recompile the window service... else need to recompile the service....
|
|
|
|
|
My requirement is the remote application sends some 15000 to 20000 messaages to be processed and the remote application happens to be done using microsoft technology then the remote application can directly add messages to MSMQ and then using the MSMQ adapter of BizTalk the messages can be picked up for further processing.
As MSMQ is used for In-Order delivery but at the same time it does not require the other application to be online that is if the messages coming are too much as mentioned above then they can very well sit in the qeue and wait for it to be picked by the MSMQ adapter, so I guess my driver here along with the ordered delivery messages it is also the number of messages coming and processing the same.
So, I was thinking of having MSMQ, so that the remote app can send the message to the MSMQ and the Biztalk would pickup the messages using the MSMQ adapter for further processing. Please share your thoughts ... or is there a better option to handle this scenario, please do reply
|
|
|
|
|
Please do reply back of what you think about the approach or is there any better approach to cater to my requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
I am in the process of designing a typical financial software package. I have googled to try to find sample designs I could benchmark against. I count not find any. Does any one know any links that show sample designs of financial software. It might contain data flow diagrams, or uml diagrams, or sample user interfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Need to define the scope of the problem... which part you are looking for....
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all.
I am writing some paperwork about Object Relational Mapping / Data Access Layer development technnoligies and tools (like Microsoft ADO/DAO, LINQ to SQL, Entity Framework, (N)Hibernate, Doctrine, Apache iBatis and other SQL / CRUD generators and mappers). I would like to know other programmers' thoughts about the subject so my work is not based only on my own subjective opinion.
If someone here has experience with ORM / DAL tools (or have created own ORM / DAL) then I would be grateful to know about your findings. I can suggest some factors that you can take as a basis:
learning curve - how hard / easy it was to get into this technology, how long did it take; was the quality of the documentation appropriate?
introducing the technology into an existing project - how long did it take, was it hard, what problems did you encounter? Where there any problems - "deal breakers" that made you choose not to use some certain ORM ?DAL development tool?
starting a new project and choosing the ORM / DAL technology - how much the ORM ?DAL dictates the rules for an architecture of the new project? where there any compromises needed just to adapt your project architecture to the ORM / DAL technology?
porting some project to another data base / working environment - how did ORM / DAL tools help or create additional issues?
flexibility - if project specifications changed, how the ORM / DAL reacted? Was there any need to throw away existing ORM / DAL and choose another or create your own layer from scratch?
And considering all the above, what would be your ideal ORM / DAL tool, what features should it have and what should it avoid? Do you prefer high abstraction from SQL or maybe a tool that generates modifiable SQL / CRUD that you can tweak later and also the changes do not get lost when you use the tool to regenerate something?
And other useful ideas about this topic are welcome.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
anybody?
|
|
|
|
|
LINQ 2 SQL, AWESOME for MS SQL small to medium size projects. Easy to use and implement.
Entity Framework - Pain in the arse, 100%.
Lightspeed - Commercial solution but VERY awesome. More high-powered than LINQ 2 SQL, with more flexibility (+ compatible w/ other DB engines).
NHibernate - Too much XML hand editing, makes it slow to use and to modify sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
We are developing a .NET C# application and we also generate help files to our application. At the moment we are using Microsoft Html help format, .chm files. But the .chm help files format has some disadvantages so we are investigating if we shall continue to generate help files in this format or not.
What is the best format for help files?
- .chm
- html
- ......
(I hope this is the right forum for this kind of question.)
Regards
Marcus
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading the Enterprise solution patterns using Microsoft.net. I have a question while reading on Three Layered application, so just think of sharing with any of you and confirm.
It is said that "Make sure you eliminate the dependencies between data access components and business layer components. Either eliminate dependencies between the business layer and the presentation layer or manage the dependencies here using the Observer pattern".
My question is how can the business layer be independent from data access layer? Why because, for anything to be processed in business layer, the data needs to come from data layer. For eg: If I need to calculare employee PF, I should get the employee details from db, which is in data access layer. So there will be a function in businesslayer, which calls the corresponding function in data access layer. Is this not dependent or am I thinking stupidly? Or what exactly means that business layer should be independent from data access layer?
Same as the case with business layer and presentation layer. There will be some business logic implemented with the business layer class. So inorer to perform that, we are calling that function on the happening of some events in presentation layer. I did not understand what exactly meant by this independent? Am I thinking wrong?
Success is the good fortune that comes from aspiration, desperation, perspiration and inspiration.
|
|
|
|
|
The simplest way to think of it is "I don't care how you do it... Just do it!"
You go to the grocery store, pick out a few things, and go to the register to pay for it. The cashier hits some buttons on the register, tells you how much it costs, takes your money, and gives you change.
Now, you don't know how to work the register (Or maybe you do, if you've had a job like that, but the point is that you don't have to)... You just know that somehow the cashier is adding everything up and figuring out how much you owe.
On the same note, the cashier doesn't know how the register works inside. He/she just knows how to push the buttons, scan the items, and get the right total. Maybe there's a system inside where it's notifying the stock room that product X needs to be resupplied. Maybe it's building up a database of how often each product is purchased... All the cashier knows is that they push the buttons and get the response they need.
"Layers" in software are much the same way... The point is that all each layer knows is how to get what it needs from the layer below it. The presentation layer has no idea where all those employee details are coming from... It just knows how to take that data and make it look pretty on the screen. The business layer doesn't know how the data is being stored, or what the tables and fields are called... It just knows how to say "Give me all the details for employee 12345."
So the short answer is that each layer is dependent on the other one doing its job, but not dependent on how that job is done. Like I said above, each layer looks to the one beneath it and says, "I don't care how you do it... Just do it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Assume there's a rule: nobody may have a salary higher then the CEO. Where to put this rule in the system?
When you try to answer this question you will see that each choice (put it in the presentation layer, bussiness layer, data layer) has it advantages and disadvantages. Now repeat the question for the rule 'every order must have at least one line'. Would you put it in the same layer as the previous rule? Why or why not?
I hope that you will see that there are categories of rules: some are better in the data layer, some better in the bussiness layer,... This is what MS is talking about...
Rozis
|
|
|
|