|
You can turn off some of Style Cops annoyances. Besides, you should be spending more time focusing on the logic and functionality of your code than the style. In fact, one of the first things I do in a contract that involves code reviews is insert an obvious error into my code for review. If this first comment about my code is style related I know that most people in the room are not playing for the right team. It is about code first.
|
|
|
|
|
You can selectively enable/disable most of the rules but there isn't a way to edit a rule. Putting using statements inside the namespace is recommended for the following reasons:
From http://www.thewayithink.co.uk/stylecop/sa1200.htm[^]
There are subtle differences between placing using directives within a namespace element, rather than outside of the namespace, including:
1. Placing using-alias directives within the namespace eliminates compiler confusion between conflicting types.
2. When multiple namespaces are defined within a single file, placing using directives within the namespace elements scopes references and aliases.
The spacing reccomendations are most likely due to screen space concerns. Anyway, the code you show would look like this to meet the StyleCop settings:
if (value < maximumValue)
{
}
Scott Dorman Microsoft® MVP - Visual C# | MCPD
President - Tampa Bay IASA
[ Blog][ Articles][ Forum Guidelines]
Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
|
|
|
|
|
hello
Need to Transfer big DataTable over WCF - any good WCF article on this subject you'd recommend (i.e. good ones you have read)
Thanks!
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Rethink your design.
The user is unlikely to want a whole lot of data all at once.
|
|
|
|
|
it's a financial app where user views huge (as much as tech possible) amount of data and client app is not permitted to contact db direct
you have a better suggestion or you actually knows how to wire data table down? Whether socket or WPF?
dev
|
|
|
|
|
I'm always amazed that people want to transfer DataTables over the wire. Remember that a DataTable is a structure that is specific to the .NET framework, so a whole lot of plumbing is required in none-MS applications to understand and work with them.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
if client app is not to communicate directly with db (not permitted), then what's your soln
dev
|
|
|
|
|
A web service would probably do it, and you're still going to have to cut down on the data being transferred. There's no way you can get away with displaying thousands of records on the screen at once, so why transfer them?!
As someone else has already said, rethink you're design. If you have to aggregate thousands of records, the web service can handle that and return the result. Your solution, for best responsiveness and minimumal network use should lean toward having the service do as much work as possible and transfer only what the user can actually see.
|
|
|
|
|
you're saying you can do web service and not via WCF?
rethink what you've learnt. I've done countless screens paging sorting I know like back of my hand so I don't need another lecture of how many rows the grid can or should display.
In short, anyone of you actually has done it, wire a DataTable over the wire (or not)
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I don't care what you use. The basic problem still remains. You're trying to transfer data that you shouldn't be trasnfering. There is no reason to send large DataTables over the wire. Send only what you need.
|
|
|
|
|
if you dont know let me know
dev
|
|
|
|
|
How many different ways do we have to tell you that sending a DataTable is not a good idea? It's just too big, even if it's empty!
Create your own objects to hold your data plus an IEnumerable collection to hold them. Then you can serialize that over the wire with minimal overhead.
|
|
|
|
|
you don't know you sh*t
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Voted to remove message. Too bad I can't vote to remove user...
I already told you how it's normally done. If you want ot continue to bang your head against a wall trying to do it the hard way, fine. Don't let me stop you.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Voted to remove message. Too bad I can't vote to remove user...
why don't you ask babe(and start learning how to wire down a DataTable)
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Why should I, when I can do it faster and more efficiently by NOT using a DatTable?
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't send a DataTable. I would normally send a custom collection of objects.
|
|
|
|
|
Use a strongly typed object that WCF can expose easily, and that can be recognised by more than just .NET.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first article you link to there is interesting because he actually advises not to send data as a DataTable because it is slow. He gained a six-fold performance increase by converting to POCO objects (an IEnumerable of type MyData in his example) and using a DataContractSerializer to send.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you can transmit something as a datatable doesn't mean you should. Think about it this way - would you send your house through the post, just to send a letter that's on a desk? The DataTable infrastructure, in this case, is your house and the letter is the actual data you are trying to transmit.
The bottom line - a DataTable is too heavyweight an object to be a useful transmission mechanism; go for straight POCO instead and you can tune it to be as efficient as possible.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
i think advise to first convert to csv will work fine but i'm not too keen on writing the extra code just to juice the extra performance (presumeably non-significant) when the whole deal is wired within the almighty corporate intranet - we'd rahter wait till users moans about performance before we do this (besides, this is not the bottleneck at the moment, our primary being sql not clustered)
this said, curious, how much overhead with DataTable - the initial overhead, and per-row overhead (We've no time even to test this out... in fact we alrteady built this wiring DataTable as byte array), any experience to this end? is it appreciable?
dev
|
|
|
|
|
devvvy wrote: any experience to this end
Yes.
devvvy wrote: is it appreciable?
Yes.
devvvy wrote: we'd rahter wait till users moans about performance before we do this
Trouble is - that costs more to fix. It's always more expensive to fix problem code later than sooner - changing from a DataTable later on will cause you all sorts of problems because you have other code that relies on the DataTable.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - I'd just wire DataTable over wcf as it's already done. But build your wrapper around it so client code don't touch the later directly and change (wired as csv instead but delimitors can be a headache and also conversion and casting overhead ... need justify that as well) can be put in place later on underneath wrapper layer.
Just a thought, WCF is successor to asmx so definitely will choose WCF over asmx. What about socket? If interop/security/transaction/reliability all not *required* (think only WCF service we're using now is async call back- which really can also be easily replaced), would you think socket being a better choice for large data transfer over the wire?
dev
|
|
|
|
|
Why not use Tab separated values or some other simplified format? DataTable is a very heavy object and serializing it would give you significantly more bytes to transfer. And from my experience Excel is pretty dumb when it comes to things like data types, so all of that info from the database would probably be lost in translation anyway.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
