|
Pete O`Hanlon wrote: Pop up message box to ask user to ring somebody to confirm that it is OK to continue.
Ohhh .....Thats what called User confirmation .....I thought something different....
Regards,
Sylvester G
|
|
|
|
|
If this transaction wasn't started by the user in some way, imagine if the user went on a holiday. Or quit. 
Cheers,
Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
|
|
|
|
|
Begin Transaction
1. Fire contractor
2. Throw out code
3. Rewrite System
Commit
-------------------------------------------
Damian - Insert snappy one-liner here.
|
|
|
|
|
More likely...
Begin transaction
Hire new outsourcing firm
Add more tentacles to existing Codethulu
Commit self to mental hospital
--
You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
|
You assume that this person was a contractor. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
I hope for sake that his managers wanted to write such code.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure I've seen this used as an example in more than 1 place of how NOT to write transaction code. Maybe your guy skip read the chapter and accidentally picked up the wrong flow chart of how to write this stuff. I'm suprised that anyone who has experience with transactions would dream of doing anything other than Begin, Get the job done quick, Get the hell out.
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
I found the following C# code in an existing application I was hired to rewrite..
catch (System.OutOfMemoryException)
{
continue;
}
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh, yes a true classic.
--
Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Exquisite gems in programming right?
|
|
|
|
|
How about a new operator in the catch block? 
|
|
|
|
|
I once saw a program that allocated a huge array on startup. When a certain out of memory condition occurred, it freed the array, then performed a shutdown (hoping that the newly available memory would suffice).
I was quite frightened.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
|
|
|
|
|
I can just imagine that guy sitting there thinking, "Out of memory... PROBLEM SOLVED!!!111!11one"
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch(OutOfMemoryException ex) {
Ram r = new Ram(RamDualChannelMode.Enabled, 512, 512);
r.Install(RamInstallMode.HotPlug);
}
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker
My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
|
|
|
|
|
I think the "new Ram()" call will fail, hence installation would be impossible...
How unfortunate! 
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, run out of memory and just keep going as if nothing happened
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
Regards,
Satips. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow;
Don't walk behind me, I may not lead;
Walk beside me, and just be my friend. - Albert Camus
|
|
|
|
|
Found in C++ code of one of my colleagues several years ago:
if (x == 0)
{
y = 0;
}
else
{
y = x;
}
Asad
|
|
|
|
|
I would wonder whether or not it was originally something like:
if (x == FALSE)
{
y = 0;
}
else
{
y = x;
}
(With FALSE being 0 of course.)
|
|
|
|
|
Something similar:
if (x == false)
{
return false;
}
else
{
return true;
}
Jeff Clark
Systems Architect
JP Clark, INC.
Columbus, Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
Your example is from someone not knowing (or being reluctant to use) boolean logic:
return (x != false); would have been the same.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
|
|
|
|
|
Or just:
return x;
Jeff Clark
Systems Architect
JP Clark, INC.
Columbus, Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
Sure.
That would convert X's type (maybe BOOL?) implicitly to bool, whereas the operator!= I used does this explicitly.
It probably doesn't matter.
Failure is not an option - it's built right in.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: (With FALSE being 0 of course.)
No longer. C# is getting stricter. You have to explicitly do a type cast to escape the compiler wrath and whip.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
