|
|
Don't bump your posts, it's very rude!
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not claiming any knowledge of this as I've never used it but I've just read the docs on the RegisterChannel and Unregister channel.
It appears that you may only need to use these methods to add/remove additional http or tcp channels to the registered channels list. By default, there are ones named "http" and "tcp" which is probably what's being used by your app. The registered channels list requires unique names which is why these methods are there in case you need to have more than one of either type.
I may be way off here - as i said I've never used it - but the docs seem to imply this.
Alt Register Channel Page[^]
RegisterChannel[^]
UnregisterChannel[^]
DaveBTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)Visual Basic is not used by normal people so we're not covering it here. (Uncyclopedia)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I read those docs, and maybe I missed something.
Channels require a number, Port number that is, and not a name.
The client connect through the port number .
And it can do that even if I dont register the channel at the server.
Why do I need to register the channel then?
And most important how do I release the channel?
10x.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a manager class which works as a proxy for connecting to mysql database. I have 2 methods in it, ConnectToDatabase and ExecuteQuery.
How should I write the class? Should I make it singleton?
Else, if I initiate the class each time, won't it take delay to connect to database??
Thanks in advance
Anvesh
|
|
|
|
|
anveshvm wrote: Else, if I initiate the class each time, won't it take delay to connect to database??
Initialization of your proxy class will not affect the delay to connect to database. And I don't think you need a singleton implementation here.
|
|
|
|
|
What about the connection object??
Should I keep the object static for the entire program execution scope.
Or should I connect to the database, each time, I have to execute a query?
|
|
|
|
|
anveshvm wrote: Or should I connect to the database, each time, I have to execute a query?
Yeah. That's the right approach.
anveshvm wrote: Should I keep the object static for the entire program execution scope.
You can keep it if the object is very expensive to build each time. But if it is a simple proxy class, keeping instance will not give performance difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi.
I am currently learning Linq and have some trouble with the Linq Contains function.
Here is what I first tried:
DataClasses1DataContext con = new DataClasses1DataContext(@"myconstring");
bool contains = con.Images.Contains(con.Images.First(n => n.imageID == 2));
I was pretty shure this would work but contains became false.
I then tried this:
Image myImg = con.Images.First(n => n.imageID == 2);
Image myImg3 = con.Images.First(n => n.imageID == 2);
if (myImg.Equals(myImg3))
Console.WriteLine("hurra");
But this did not work either. The two instances did not equal eachother.
I continued to try with this:
Image myImg2 = new Image
{
created = DateTime.Parse("23.05.2008 00:00:00"),
description = "Jalla",
imageID = 2,
name = "test",
searchWords = "halla",
systemID = 1
};
Image myImg4 = new Image
{
created = DateTime.Parse("23.05.2008 00:00:00"),
description = "Jalla",
imageID = 2,
name = "test",
searchWords = "halla",
systemID = 1
};
if (myImg2.Equals(myImg4))
Console.WriteLine("hurra");
But still they did not equal eachother. Only way I got this to work was by adding my img instances to a Array of Images[] and then do contains on this.
Image[] imgs = {myImg, myImg2, myImg3, myImg4};
bool contains = imgs.Contains(myImg2);
This gives contains a true value. So then I tought that this should work:
bool contains = con.Images.ToList().Contains(con.Images.First(n => n.imageID == 2));
But still contains is set to false.
So I am stumped. Anyone got anny sugestions or hints to why this does not work?
|
|
|
|
|
I found one workaround, but I still wonder if there is a bether way of doing this. Here is a solution that works:
bool contains = con.Images.ToList().Contains(con.Images.First(n => n.imageID == 2),new checker());
and the checker class:
public class checker : IEqualityComparer</image>
And I am still verry curious to why this dont work:
Image myImg2 = new Image
{
created = DateTime.Parse("23.05.2008 00:00:00"),
description = "Jalla",
imageID = 2,
name = "test",
searchWords = "halla",
systemID = 1
};
Image myImg4 = new Image
{
created = DateTime.Parse("23.05.2008 00:00:00"),
description = "Jalla",
imageID = 2,
name = "test",
searchWords = "halla",
systemID = 1
};
if (myImg2.Equals(myImg4))
Console.WriteLine("hurra");
I see no reason why these two instances should not equal eachother.
Here is the autogenerated Image class if anyone wants to know how that looks:
[Table(Name="dbo.Images")]
public partial class Image
{
private int _imageID;
private int _systemID;
private string _name;
private string _description;
private string _searchWords;
private System.DateTime _created;
private System.Nullable<system.datetime> _uppdated;
public Image()
{
}
[Column(Storage="_imageID", AutoSync=AutoSync.Always, DbType="Int NOT NULL IDENTITY", IsDbGenerated=true)]
public int imageID
{
get
{
return this._imageID;
}
set
{
if ((this._imageID != value))
{
this._imageID = value;
}
}
}
[Column(Storage="_systemID", DbType="Int NOT NULL")]
public int systemID
{
get
{
return this._systemID;
}
set
{
if ((this._systemID != value))
{
this._systemID = value;
}
}
}
[Column(Storage="_name", DbType="NVarChar(50) NOT NULL", CanBeNull=false)]
public string name
{
get
{
return this._name;
}
set
{
if ((this._name != value))
{
this._name = value;
}
}
}
[Column(Storage="_description", DbType="NVarChar(2000)")]
public string description
{
get
{
return this._description;
}
set
{
if ((this._description != value))
{
this._description = value;
}
}
}
[Column(Storage="_searchWords", DbType="NVarChar(2000)")]
public string searchWords
{
get
{
return this._searchWords;
}
set
{
if ((this._searchWords != value))
{
this._searchWords = value;
}
}
}
[Column(Storage="_created", DbType="DateTime NOT NULL")]
public System.DateTime created
{
get
{
return this._created;
}
set
{
if ((this._created != value))
{
this._created = value;
}
}
}
[Column(Storage="_uppdated", DbType="DateTime")]
public System.Nullable<system.datetime> uppdated
{
get
{
return this._uppdated;
}
set
{
if ((this._uppdated != value))
{
this._uppdated = value;
}
}
}
}</system.datetime></system.datetime>
|
|
|
|
|
Continued from "Another" one automation error...[^]
Ok, now, we going some steps forward...
System architecture is as follows: there are number of out-of-process COM servers. Each one uses an in-process server to access .NET interop. So:
[out-of-process COM server No.1] --\
[out-of-process COM server No.2] -- \
........................................................... --> [in-process COM component] --> [.NET interop component]
[out-of-process COM server No.n] ---/
This architecture required because it get possible to set each application with its own configuration provided to .NET component.
From previous attempts we know, that .NET component with satellite assemblies should be placed in working directory of COM application. In my case I need to duplicate them in each COM application. Or to install them to GAC.
So, I have placed all assemblies (including resources) to GAC and... right, I got automation error...
Fuslogvw does not point to some error. All assemblies were found and loaded from GAC successfully (except en-culture resource file that really does not present and embedded - it should not be a case, does not it?)
So the questions are:
- Is there some way to optimize present architecture scheme?
- Why GAC installation does not work?
- Does COM application need some additional permissions to access GAC?
Thanks to all.
modified on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 4:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone having idea for pdf to word/doc conversion !!!!!
Don't walk as if u rule the world,walk as if u don't care who tha Hell rules the world ...
|
|
|
|
|
r u looking in c# or any language
|
|
|
|
|
any language , C# preffered
Thanks
Don't walk as if u rule the world,walk as if u don't care who tha Hell rules the world ...
|
|
|
|
|
Any help ?????? 
Don't walk as if u rule the world,walk as if u don't care who tha Hell rules the world ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
No I am not looking for a tool but source code/dll/or some basic source from where i can get help that how can we read a pdf file in c# and convert that in doc/word file with images preserved...
Thanks
Don't walk as if u rule the world,walk as if u don't care who tha Hell rules the world ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen this earlier, this is not having any functionality to convert pdf to doc. Its creating,merging,splitting pdf but doesn't converting...
Thanks..
Don't walk as if u rule the world,walk as if u don't care who tha Hell rules the world ...
|
|
|
|
|
No problem. Sorry I could help more, but hopefully someone else comes up with an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a multi-threaded implementation of a lockless queue in C# using Interlocked.CompareExchange() and a multi-threaded implementation of a locked queue that uses lock() when it comes to enqueueing and dequeueing items. Essentially, what happens is that I use System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem() to queue 5-10 pieces of work (some function), which enqueues and dequeues from the lockless/locked queue several hundred thousand times.
A lot of articles have explained that using a lockless queue can improve performance when it comes to accessing a data structure, but I'm finding that the locked queue (which is simpler) ends up being faster. From a theoretical standpoint, I understand that synchronization primitives may be expensive, which is part of the reason why lockless should be faster. On the other hand, a lockless implementation with 5 operations working at the same time works by having one operation try and succeed, while for the other operations, they will have to redo their work again since the original data may have changed. That seems like a lot of waste to me and (again, from a theoretical standpoint) not faster than a locked implementation or even a single-threaded implementation.
Also, just to give some context, I'm only using a dumb queue. There's nothing special or intensive about what I'm doing, it's just creating a node to add to the queue, and taking a node out. In the locked multi-threaded implementation, only the node creation part is not inside the lock(). Everything else is (essentially) single-threaded since it has to wait for the lock before adding or removing a node.
Is anyone able to explain why I'm getting the performance results that I'm getting, and generally, what advantages there are to lockless aside from what I'm already expecting (faster multi-threaded queue access).
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
my best guess would be your test code is too simple: if all the test does is adding and removing queue entries, without any real calculations in between, then most CPU cycles are spent in the spin-loop inside Interlocked. IMO Interlocked is intended to and will work fine when contentions are rare, not when you create them all the time; under light contention conditions, I expect it to work more efficient than any other synchronization scheme.
To confirm this, you should try and come up with a test where extra CPU cycles are required to process the nodes; I would recommend adding something until you see the number of queue/dequeue operations go down by at least 80%, then for that computational load compare again the two schemes.
|
|
|
|
|
I put another variable in my lockless queue to measure the retry count (the number of times it has to spin again because something changed), and in my test bench, it seems that an additional 50% of operations are done, so 100 enqueues ends up being something like 100 successful operations and 50 respins, approximately. I'm not sure how well my numbers compare with other implementations, but that does seem like a lot. It seems from the result that the lockless implementation works best with little contention, but I'm curious to know the theory behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
Cyrilix wrote: measure the retry count (the number of times it has to spin again because something changed)
Not sure I understand what you mean. Care to share some code here?
Cyrilix wrote: I'm curious to know the theory behind it.
You could use reflector to investigate how it has been implemented in .NET although I expect you would also need to study the IL specification and still will be kept in the dark on how the native code looks (it is very likely they use special assembly instructions in the end).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
