|
|
It's been a long time since I've heard those three words put together.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Good evening,
Well I am responsible for designing the architecture of an application which is supposed to extract data from a web service, cache is locally and perform analysis and show results to the user. Initially the team has tried to make the application in ASP .NET, but due to large size of results, it is not feasible to operate over HTTP mode.
Now I am working on following idea:
- Application will download the data from website (using web service) and cache it locally with expiry time marked
- I will perform analysis in off line mode and show results to the user. User then can run what-if scenarios of the data as well
Functional requirements includes, data security (as data is pretty sensitive) and ROLE based web service access.
I am reading : WSE 3.0, CAB and Smart Client Architecture.
Any other suggestions?
Regards,
:: Platform = Microsoft .NET 2.0
-------------------
Therez No Place like ... 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
What platforms are you working on? You mention smart client, is that pocket pc or laptop?
Also, just in case you missed it, Soap and web services operate over http.
Sounds like you'll want to maybe load up a DataSet, then encrypt and compress it for travel and store it locally. Now if this is on a laptop, you might be able to get away with just serializing the dataset encrypted and compressed to a file and hydrate it within the app and work with it as an embedded database. If its a pocket pc then you'll want to store it locally in SqlCE and work with it from there.
For the Role based security, you just need a login shell to front your app and handle that in the web service.
I probably missed your real point... let me know if I did.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Please review the below link,
http://www.freeprojectsinfo.com/project_management.html
By,
Senthil Kumar.V
|
|
|
|
|
Hi!
I'd like to integrate "massively" scripting capabilities to my application. I've done this before by "inventing" my own scripting language and a relatively silly interpreter behind it.
But now, while porting the application to .Net, I'd like to use a real scripting environment, ideally JavaScript.
I searched around the web and found Rhino for Java and LUA.
Does anybody have experience with this approach?
I'd like to sandbox the scripting capabilities and expose only a part of the domain model to the scripting - how to perform this?
Thanks for you advice!
Torma
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not in particular, it's interesting. I thing I read about the principle in c't (german)...
I think this approach is something very powerful, too powerful for my needs. The sanboxing is a very important element if I want to give the scripting to users.
I'd like just want to offer a dedicated domain model with only the objects and methods I want to expose in the scripting environment.
I could circumvent the sandboxing by parsing the script for accesses to unallowed objects, but this is to prone to breaches...
It seems there's nothing ready out of the box, but the need seams so obvious to me ... AJAX seems to be the only interest for scripting...
I came only reacently back to MS developping, so I'm not very avare what's available right now. I read about some stripting technology MS withdrew in .Net 2.0 or so (VSA? http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/vsascripting.asp )
I'm not technical enough to do such a thing myself in a correct manner (I'm getting too old  )
a+
Torma
-- modified at 15:10 Tuesday 24th April, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
There's an article somewhere around here that uses C# for scripting. But if you're targeting users, Lua is a nice one. Not sure about support in .NET, its been awhile since I worked with it.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: I can assure you we don't care about metric measurements
What about towards a metric America [^]?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: So in spite of the familiar argument that base-10 systems are native to humans, stemming from the number of appendages at the ends of our hands, we argue that in many cases, the English "halving" system is more consistent with the natural abilities of our brains and the typical ways that we deal with the world around us.
You have a point. That's why I often ask for half a kilogram of something, or 250 grams. It works a charm. 
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't end there: half a kilogram is roughly a pound, now we're talking real Miscegenation!
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is now degenerate.
|
|
|
|
|
Brady Kelly wrote: This thread is now degenerate.
Sure but only by about 9 tenths of a gram 
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: An interface should be designed for a particular user community and should serve their interests only. I live in the heartland of the United States and I can assure you we don't care about metric measurements of baby formula. Or anything else.
My first phone was monoband. I could use it in the UK on the Cellnet phone network only.
My second phone was dual band and I could use it all over Europe.
My current phone is tri-band and I can use it anywhere in the world.
If I stuck with your idea, I'd never be able to use my phone outside of the UK. I'm glad there is more to the phone that I can use it in multiple locations.
What if you want to take your baby overseas and into a country that uses metric? where are you going to be with your imperial units?
The Grand Negus wrote: Numerical measurements should be attuned to human sensibilities. I can easily see the difference between 8 ounces and 7; but the difference between 250 milliliters and 249 is nearly imperceptible and therefore ridiculous in this context.
Why not think of it as a quarter litre then? I really don't see what the problem is? I became metric about 7 years ago. It didn't take long to switch, it actually happened without me even realising. I suggest you have a predjudice and you are deliberately forcing yourself to find fault with the metric system.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: The Grand Negus wrote:
Numerical measurements should be attuned to human sensibilities. I can easily see the difference between 8 ounces and 7; but the difference between 250 milliliters and 249 is nearly imperceptible and therefore ridiculous in this context.
Why not think of it as a quarter litre then? I really don't see what the problem is? I became metric about 7 years ago. It didn't take long to switch, it actually happened without me even realising. I suggest you have a predjudice and you are deliberately forcing yourself to find fault with the metric system.
well said. You could divide your ounce into two tablespoons, and each tablespoon into two teaspoons, but those finer gradiations aren't marked anymore than the 249ml level is marked next to the 250. 
--
CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem].
Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with "English" units is that they aren't. They were different depending on location. And that caused a lot of confusion. A metric unit is the same regardless of where you are in the world.
The Grand Negus wrote: I'm saying that an ounce is a useful measure, while a milliliter is too small and a liter is too big (for babies).
An interesting qualifier that you put in at the end. You wouldn't fill up your car in fluid ounce. I fill my car in litres (and I have a 40 litre tank - it's a small car).
Would you take drugs in ounces? I have to take 10mg of Enalapril every day. That is a nice number to remember when I go to the pharmacy. 0.000352739619 ounces is not.
The Grand Negus wrote: The basic units of the metric system are not fit for everyday use by humans.
Seriously, I don't have a problem with metric.
I am 173cm - That to me is easier than 5 feet and 8 inches.
I weight 100kg - Which is better than X stones and Y pounds. My scales don't even show imperial measurements.
In the UK we used to have the most bizzare currency up until 1971
4 farthings made a penny
12 pennies made a shilling
20 shillings made a pound (or 240 pennies)
21 shillings made a guinne (or 252 pennies)
We now have, in common with many currancies (including the US dollar)
100 small units that add up to one large unit.
100 pennies = 1 pound
100 cents = 1 dollar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: I don't buy it. 173 of anything is not friendly. You may be used to it, but it's not natural. And are you sure it's not 172 or 174? Who can tell?
Well "who can tell" if I'm not 5ft 7in or 5ft 9in. Either way I'd use a measuring stick.
The Grand Negus wrote: Do you tell people you'll call them back in 600 seconds rather than 10 minutes?
Time is not yet metrified. But if it were and a day was split into 10 hours of 100 minutes each and 100 seconds per hour then it wouldn't be so bad
1 new hour = 2.4 old hours
1 new minute = 1.44 old minutes
1 new second = 0.864 old seconds.
So, in new time, if I wanted to tell someone that I was going to call them back in a short period of time I could quite easily still say "I'll call you back in 5 or 10 minutes"
The Grand Negus wrote: How wide is my driveway? About ten feet. What's the metric version of that?
About 3 metres.
The Grand Negus wrote: How wide is a door? About 2-1/2, maybe 3 feet. What's that in centimeters?
About 1 metre (or 100cm if you must)
The Grand Negus wrote: And how tall am I? About 6 feet. I say again, metric units are simply not convenient; not humane.
If you aren't used to them, of course you will resist. Humans resist change. If you want to stick with your old ways, then fine by me. I'm happy with metric. It makes perfect sense to me.
When shopping I always buy milk by the litre. All those odd sizes that are 2.224l (4 pints) just look odd to me. I'll buy 2 litres. If I'm following a recepe it will have the measurement in ml or litres anyway.
The Grand Negus wrote: Indeed. So why do those of us who live with such a system always find ourselves saying things like "a quarter" or "half a buck"?
You riled agains me using the measurement of a quarter litre before. Make up your mind!
The Grand Negus wrote: Again, because the unit (cent) is too small to be anything but a nuisance.
Well, because of inflation it is now. It used to be very important. When I was a child I could get a "penny chew" - These cost about 5p now.
The Grand Negus wrote: As an interesting aside, we pay all our bills, personal and corporate, rounded up to the nearest dollar just so we won't have to deal with the pennies.
You might. I don't. My bills come in down to the penny.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You might. I don't. My bills come in down to the penny.
I live in the states, and I am always paying in cents as well. Maybe Kentucky is different. But my phone, cable, etc.. all get down to the penny. Hell, almost all of the little surcharges and taxes are just that, pennies. A few pennies here times a million customers and that's some good money.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
It is natural if you grow up with it.
My wife is very accurate with centimeters describing her height, and kilometers for travel. Miles, feet, and inches are a problem for her.
So, for her, it is natural. For me its not. I'd rather stick with feet and inches. Its what I'm familiar with.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: But does anyone really need to talk to someone on the other side of the earth?
Yes. I phone to California from time to time. I used to phone to Denver quite a bit. When I've visited North America I've phoned home, or to a friend on a few streets away.
The Grand Negus wrote: I know I'd be happier having this conversation with a real flesh-and-blood neighbor, face-to-face, than on this remote and unresponsive forum.
Well, sometimes that just isn't possible. No matter how loud I yell, no one in California is going to here me.
The Grand Negus wrote: When I was young I attended a church with almost 1000 members. At least one out of ten was musically inclined, but only two or three were allowed to share their songs each week; and because of the politics of large groups, most never got to share at all. I came to the conclusion that smaller, more intimate, local groups would serve the individuals in those groups better, and started a home church.
In the context of units of measurement this story makes no sense. In the context of giving everyone a better chance at having an opportunity to share their songs it makes a lot of sense. So, I don't really see what this anecdote is adding to the argument. It sounds like a Grandpa Simpson story to me.
The Grand Negus wrote: I think I'd like a world where each community had it's own phone system, designed by the local genius and maintained by the local handymen. Such a system could be used by the locals to talk to other locals - primarily to plan face-to-face meetings! And other communities could do the same, giving their local genius the opportunity to flex his mental muscles, and their local handymen the chance to be useful to their neighbors.
Thank goodness I don't live in that world. My relatives are spread out across the world. I'd never hear from them for years at a time in your scenario.
The Grand Negus wrote: I really don't see how more than this improves the quality of life for anyone. And by quality I mean the opportunity to be both creative and useful. The whole argument hangs on those two words.
There are plenty opportunities for people to be creative and useful in this world. There are no shortage of people starting their own little businesses to serve the local community.
But, I fail to see what this has to do with units of measurement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
