|
I couldn't find any sample where they have shown the exact use of calling garbage collector explicitely. For example what I think is if I am using Interop, say object of Excel file in .Net, it is good to call GC.Collect to free up the memory.
Is what i think correct? What are the other scenarios when we should use Garbage Collector ?
Thanks for your help in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Het2109 wrote: it is good to call GC.Collect to free up the memory.
It's almost never a good idea to call GC.Collect directly. Just because you are using Interop, it will depend on what you are doing. If you are directly allocating memory or translating structures to pointers (or back again) using any of the methods on the Marshal class then you need to be very careful about allocating and deallocating memory using the appropriate methods on the Marshal class.
Het2109 wrote: What are the other scenarios when we should use Garbage Collector ?
Any time you are writing managed code you're using the garbage collector. If the class you are using implements the IDisposable interface (or provides a Dispose method) you should call Dispose as soon as you can after you're done using that class. See this article[^] for more information.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—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
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Scott for your reply and article, it really helped me get rid of my confusion and get to know more of GC.
|
|
|
|
|
Het2109 wrote: Thanks Scott for your reply and article, it really helped me get rid of my confusion and get to know more of GC.
Glad to help.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—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
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it can be counterproductive to call GC.Collect directly. IIRC one side effect is that objects that survive collection will move quicker into higher generations, and be less likely to be looked at in following collections.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey all,
I was wondering if there was a utility to generate c# classes from database tables?
|
|
|
|
|
seanwright wrote: I was wondering if there was a utility to generate c# classes from database tables?
Are you talking about Object-Relational mapping?[^]
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there are several. Search for "Object Relational Mapper" or "O/RM". Some that come to mind are NHibernate, SubSonic, and the ADO.NET Entity Framework.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—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
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
I've been looking at O/RM for a while. I guess I'm just looking (right now) at creating custom collection classes based of data from a database. Now, I don't want every column from the table I'm querying, just a few key columns.
So basically I'm looking for a utility which will generate a class and I'll just delete what I don't need afterwards. Make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that makes sense. Take a look at http://SubSonic[^] as I think it will allow you to do what you want.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—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
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to use Linq, there's always SqlMetal.
|
|
|
|
|
Generators are great until you modify the generated code, and then you are stuck maintaining it.
I, of course, recommend Diamond Binding[^] for an end-to-end ORM solution. We plug into VS, and are probably the fastest to get off the ground with. (Check the example section)
Subsonic use a build provider approach which is quite reasonable. Subsonic also provides some UI framework, which is either a blessing or a curse, depending on how you feel about separation of concerns.
NHibernate is great, but difficult to use. Diamond Binding uses NHibernate to do the heavy lifting behind the scenes.
But avoid code-generators like the plague, they tend to give you a very inflexible model, which can be difficult to extend.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I need some help to clarify some confusion I have. If I access some data from the db and then create objects which hold the data--for example, access the customer table and create a customer object--am I using Connected technique or Disconnected? My understanding is I am using disconnected, however my teachers disagree.
I think to use connected technique I will query the db and keep connection open and every time a change is made it is made directly in db.
In other words, if the changes are made anywhere except the data storage source--the database in this case--then it is disconnected.
Furthermore, when you bind controls to the db, is it using connected or disconnected?
Please write a detailed answer and you can assume I am well familiar with ADO.NET.
CodingYoshi
|
|
|
|
|
The best explanation can be found on MSDN. From ADO.NET Architecture[^]:
<blockqoute>
The ADO.NET DataSet is the core component of the disconnected architecture of ADO.NET.
(emphasis added)
If you create a custom business object and then populate fields internal to that business object from a database, you are only connected to the database long enough to retrieve the data. The same applies for data binding.
Scott.
—In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
—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
[ Forum Guidelines] [ Articles] [ Blog]
|
|
|
|
|
CodingYoshi wrote: am I using Connected technique or Disconnected?
In classic ASP, you could use a connected recordset to access the data in the table more or less directly. In .NET this technique isn't used any more. There is no object in .NET that uses that kind of direct connection.
A DataTable works as a disconnected recordset. A DataReader works as a read-only forward-only recordset. There is no object that works as a connected recordset.
CodingYoshi wrote: when you bind controls to the db, is it using connected or disconnected?
Data binding in itself actually doesn't have anything to do with the database at all. A data source can be a data reader that reads from the database, but it can also be a data table that contains data that was previously read from the database, or even a list of objects that has nothing to do with the database at all. The data binding always reads from a data source, never from the database directy.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
hiiiii friends
i m using asp.net2.0
i want to off right click in my application....
thanks...
yogesh
|
|
|
|
|
yogeshpan wrote: i m using asp.net2.0
Then post your question in the ASP.NET forum.
Paul Marfleet
"No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government"
Tom Sawyer - Rush
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I installed .NET framework 1.1 on my computer and a "Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Configuration" showed up in "Administrative Tools" as expected, but when I installed .NET Framework 2.0 it didn't show any configuration tool in the "Administrative Tools"! What is the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
You may need to do a reinstall. I've got both on my machine 
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I think .Net Framework 2 Configuration tool does not come with the framework setup. It is a part of visual studio.
Mehroz
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard that initially Microsoft's .Net Framework 2.0 was only supported for English OS, but later they have generated a Service Pack for localized version, can anyone please help me in that “is it true?”, if yes what is the Service Pack number for that.
Regards,
Mushq
modified on Thursday, March 6, 2008 3:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
that is not true. The standard .NET framework is in english and the other languages are added via language packs (e.g. "Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Language Pack - DEU"). Those where available right from the beginning (probably some days later). This has nothing to do with Service Pack 1 which has also been released for .NET.
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mushq wrote: Here is the source of language pack in German
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=de&FamilyID=39c8b63b-f64b-4b68-a774-b64ed0c32ae7[^]
Am I right?
Yes.
Mushq wrote: Can you please tell why there is difference in size?
Well the second download link just points to a readme.html, because there is no language pack in english (english is already contained in the framework by default).
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
What a tool!
Anyway, I'm fairly new to .NET ... I'm just doing some debugging using this tool. Its dead easy to view the contents of a DataSet using the native VS visualizer but where is this in Mole ... what path through the objects and properties do you walk to get a view on the actual contents of a DataSet?
Thanks,
James.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Be Humble in Victory and Strong in Defeat.
