James T. Johnson wrote: Of course you may have left that detail out again
Nope, good idea of yours, thanks
James T. Johnson wrote: Correct again
Thanks for your help James, much appreciated.
p.s. Daniel now has me worried that my class setup is, while elegant, a bad idea Do you agree, disagree? And why have collections at all if they are a bad idea? (thankfully apart from the medium sized product database, the actual traffic to this site is low and it will only be running on one server. Not exactly a high stress site )
I can see this becoming an issue when this design forces you to load all of the records when you only needed a subset. In my design I abstracted even further to address other problems, but it looks like it could solve this 'problem*' as well.
I have: AdvertiserCollection -> Advertiser -> AdCollection -> Ad
None of these classes know anything about databases; I have separate classes responsible for that, and they take into account whether all of the records are needed or only a subset.
*This only becomes a problem when you are fetching all of the rows when you don't need to. If your current code doesn't do this, then there isn't a problem now but there could be one in the future when you forget about this and wonder why it performs badly.
James T. Johnson wrote: None of these classes know anything about databases; I have separate classes responsible for that, and they take into account whether all of the records are needed or only a subset.
Fully, I certainly have not made it so that each time I need a list of Ads from a certain Advertiser that each Ad constructor opens a DB connection and pulls down just it's own details. But I have not gone as far as to abstract the database bit out of the class, mainly for time sake as Mr. Client paid for an el-cheapo-quick-fix version (you should have seen the arguements I had with the client trying to get the database re-designed. whole portions of the database have no relations, no primary keys, no identity seeds and even allow NULL values which just causes endless problems. But then the other half does, so it is just a nightmare.)
You're in trouble: this kind of code, although OOP-friendly and very elegant, always lead to bad performance, sooner or later.
Unfortunately, the COM+ way of doing things and having stateless components wich usually only return the needed data asked is the way to go if you have performance and scalability concerns, despite its ugliness.
The collection-style data access layer also puts you in trouble when you need your data in different ways. The way you are designing you collection classes do not reflect properly a relational database and can leave you in really bad water when in the future you need even the simplest reports or calculations.
If you decide going this way, it’s better choosing a object oriented database instead of a relational database, e.g. Caché, which allows you to store things this way, takes care of the issues you noticed and lets you query it in a flexible way.
About the database. Is it possible to create a view from these mangled tables, adding the required constraints and indexing, etc. through the view. You would then be able to properly insert new records with newer applications, as well as beeing able to use DataSets. If its not possible to create views with the current DBMS, it might be worthwhile to convince your client to upgrade to MS SQL Server, and just import the data, then create the views.
It just seems like your going through a ton of work just to represent/provide data in the way you want. And the way your going about it, no offense meant, looks like it could possibly create more work later on, (i.e. in the future). (I know, clients NEVER care about the future, and get cranky when you mention it. )
Anyway, just some thoughts after reading the thread.
Jon Rista wrote: your client to upgrade to MS SQL Server
We are using MS SQL server and I am making use of views and stored procedures. First off views are a touch limited and I am no pro at stored procedures (where is the intellisense! .)
For instance part of pulling the product out of the database involves checking the users delivery country, checking various special offers and special rules and then calculating the price. It gets complicated because each order can contain multiple delivery addresses (e.g. you buy three items, two for yourself and one for a friend) and each item is priced according to weight, type and time of year. There is also gift wrapping, gift tags and multiple VAT rules (including the fact that some products are exempt from VAT in certain countries due to their type.)
So basically there is a lot of "business logic" going on which is all calculated from the base data.
Now I thought that was the whole point of classes and a data abstraction layer. i.e. The database persists data. Store procedures and views provide the data (and to some extent stored procedures do business logic) to the classes and then the classes do various calculations and offer up that data in a nice usable way for the programmer to implement into a nice UI.
You mention DataSets (and so did Paul) but how is that going to improve things? Surely I am still going to have to encapsulate all the business logic somewhere and still then provide the DataSet data up for use to the front-end (or do DataSets allow for "complex" calculations to take place "inside" them in some way?)
DataSets are really just an in-memory cache of your database, or a part of it. And they don't nessesarily have to have a GUI. They can be created in conjunction with a schema, allowing for all the relationships and whatnot to be properly maintained in memory. You could load your data from the database into a dataset, use that as your database while doing your calculations, etc, and then persist that back to the database server when your done. It can improve performance and help keep things properly restricted.
create a workthread in c# ,and use Thread.Sleep(100000) in it.and when the main app exited ,the thread is still working!!!!
call the thread.Abort() and thread.join(0).It seemed useless.
what is the problem???
Is that a framework's bug???
Paul Riley wrote: it finishes whatever it's doing first.
Correct, more specifically it will run until it gets to a safe place to throw the exception. In this case it waits until it is done running unmanaged code before throwing the exception (Thread.Sleep is actually a P/Invoke'd call to the OS, judging by ildasm output).
not exactly,thread.Abort() never worked.
you can try this:
Console.WriteLine("thread will sleep");
Console.WriteLine("thread is awake");
and after you called thread.Abort() and exit the application,the thread never stop.
Is that to say,abort() will never find a safe place to throw a exception????
Thread.Abort() does work...its just fickle. Its also pretty much required that you catch the ThreadAbortException that Thread.Abort() throws. Its also a good idea to call Thread.Join() immediately after your call to Thread.Abort(). Thread.Join() will cause the calling thread to wait indefinitely until the child thread terminates. If you do not put Thread.Join() in, the application can exit before the child thread does, in which case the child thread will most likely never exit. The reason for this is the application repeatedly fires off the ThreadAbortException until its actully caught and dealt with. When the application exits, the ThreadAbortException can no longer be thrown, resulting in a dead thread that won't go away. I tried this, and it seemed to work fine (I tried 5 times, properly exited every time):
staticvoid Main(string args)
Console.WriteLine("[M] Starting worker thread.");
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(WorkerThread));
Console.WriteLine("[M] Killing WorkerThread...");
Console.WriteLine("[M] Main thread waiting...");
Console.WriteLine("[W] WorkerThread saying hello.");
Console.WriteLine("[W] WorkerThread saying bye-bye.");
Jon Rista wrote: The reason for this is the application repeatedly fires off the ThreadAbortException until its actully caught and dealt with.
On the contrary, you cannot fully catch the ThreadAbortException. Once execution has exited the catch block, the CLR will continue to rethrow the exception until: 1) Thread.ResetAbort is called which cancels the request to destroy the thread or 2) All of the finally blocks have exited, allowing the thread to die.
i have a problem with modeless forms...
When i click a button and execute the code below it works...
FormX MyForm=new FormX();
MyForm.Show(); // it creates a modeless form as expected!..
but when i call these two lines of code in another function such as a CallBack function like OnReceiveAsync() in my Client program or in a timer delegate function like Timer_Elapsed() it doesn't works...
it tries to create MyForm but it does not properly appears and it locks the whole program..
is it a bug? or should i do something else for Modeless forms & dialogs..
Please try it your self and see what happens..
Modal forms (MyForm.ShowDialog();)
works properly everywhere whether called by clicking on buttons or
calling via another function
but why modeless are not?..
can anyone help me out with the coding conventions that are recommended for .NET users.....as i would be recommended by micorsoft!
and a little bit of detail would be appreciated specially about naming controls...for example a textbox!