Re: Extension Methods... - C# Discussion Boards

30-Nov-07 5:38

...How cool are they??!!

For ages I've wanted a regex facility on the String class, now I don't need to bother waiting for Microsoft never to add it as I can just write it myself in 4 lines of code!

/me wanders away in a daze of impressedness.

"On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't.

"I phoned Camelot and they fobbed me off with some story that -6 is higher - not lower - than -8 but I'm not having it."
-Tina Farrell, a 23 year old thicky from Levenshulme, Manchester.

Anthony Mushrow30-Nov-07 5:46

Anthony Mushrow

30-Nov-07 5:46

Well, err. I'm glad your happy! Smile | :)

Have a beer Beer | [beer]

My current favourite word is: PIE!

I have changed my name to my regular internet alias. But don't let the 'Genius' part fool you, you don't know what 'SK' stands for.
-The Undefeated

martin_hughes30-Nov-07 5:51

30-Nov-07 5:51

led mike30-Nov-07 5:49

30-Nov-07 5:49

martin_hughes wrote:
How cool are they?

Not that cool. Wait until you see how they get abused Wink | ;)

martin_hughes30-Nov-07 5:52

30-Nov-07 5:52

Damnit! There I was being all optomistic and happy, and you had to come along and burst my bubble! Smile | :)

Judah Gabriel Himango30-Nov-07 6:45

Judah Gabriel Himango

30-Nov-07 6:45

We'll see. I think extension methods are limited enough that there won't be abuse. I liken it to C#'s typedefing, e.g.

using Foo = blabhalbhabhalbahb;
..
Foo f = new Foo();

That feature was also open to abuse, as seen by all kinds of nasty C++ typedef'ing. C# limited its scope, and now we don't see abuse.

Likewise, I *think* extension methods won't be abused, or at least any abuse will be limited in scope, given that they have to be part of a static class and that consumers don't see them unless you specifically import that namespace. I think this limitation is a good one that will discourage abuse.

Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit.
I'm currently blogging about: The Story of the Spoiled Child
The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul

Judah Himango

led mike30-Nov-07 7:08

30-Nov-07 7:08

Judah Himango wrote:
there won't be abuse.

So for example you don't think this guy[^] is capable of abusing extension methods. I don't by it.

Judah Gabriel Himango30-Nov-07 8:00

Judah Gabriel Himango

30-Nov-07 8:00

I don't buy it, either, because that's not what I'm saying. Most anything is abusable. Extension methods can be abused. But I think extension methods are limited in scope such that abuse is discouraged, and even when abuse occurs, it is limited (e.g. if I don't want to see your 420 extension methods on the string class, I don't have to).

Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit.
I'm currently blogging about: The Story of the Spoiled Child
The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul

Judah Himango

PIEBALDconsult30-Nov-07 13:51

PIEBALDconsult

30-Nov-07 13:51

Judah Himango wrote:
specifically import that namespace

Hmmm... now that concerns me, and I'll reread the spec, I don't want to be required to use the using directive just to use extension methods.

Can I please my wife by using extension methods? Cool | :cool:

PIEBALDconsult30-Nov-07 10:05

PIEBALDconsult

30-Nov-07 10:05

led mike wrote:
see how they get abused

"Every tool is a hammer." -- PIEBALD

Pete O'Hanlon30-Nov-07 11:08

Pete O'Hanlon

30-Nov-07 11:08

Actually, I have to agree. I've just been playing round with a quick method to parse various types of data out as an appropriate type from a string, e.g.

string s = "1.12345";
double myVal = s.ToDouble();

Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.

My blog | My articles

martin_hughes30-Nov-07 11:26

threading off a file copy

30-Nov-07 11:26

I can't help but feel that I've seen this post somewhere else...

davidhart30-Nov-07 5:19

davidhart

30-Nov-07 5:19

This is for a web app. I have a situation where I need to copy an bunch of files to another location but still give quick feedback to the user. Right now the file copy is inline and the performance is not great. I am considering threading off each file copy so I can give quick feedback to the user. If a copy fails it is not a big deal and the user will not access the copied files immediately. My concern is that hundreds of short running threads could drive CPU through the roof.... Does anybody have any experience with this or have any suggestions? Please let me know.

Dave

Re: threading off a file copy

Luc Pattyn30-Nov-07 5:36

Luc Pattyn

30-Nov-07 5:36

Hi Dave,

two comments:

1.
the normal approach to handle N jobs is to have a queue and a couple of threads; stuff all
the jobs in the queue, then let each of the threads fetch a job from the queue and execute
it, until the queue is empty. That way you get load balancing amongst the threads, and
only need a selectable but limited number of them, fitting the capabilities of the entire
system.

2.
whatever you do, chances are the limited bandwidth of your disk storage subsystem will keep
your CPU quite a long way away from the roof.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]

this months tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets

Re: threading off a file copy

led mike30-Nov-07 5:39

restarting an application using batch file

30-Nov-07 5:39

davidhart wrote:
have any suggestions?

You should look into other aspects of the Microsoft Application Server family like Com+ or Message Queues for example. I advise against starting threads from an ASP.NET thread.

samy10030-Nov-07 5:02

samy100

30-Nov-07 5:02

Hi,

i am trying to restart and application from within by using a batch file.

this is my batch:
TASKKILL /F /IM MyApp.exe /T
PAUSE
start MyApp.exe

when i run it by double clicking it - it does the job - closes and reopen MyApp.exe.

when i try to do it from the application by using :
System.Diagnostics.Process p = new System.Diagnostics.Process();
String path = Application.StartupPath + @"\";
p.StartInfo.FileName = path + @"ResetApp.bat";
p.Start();

the batch kill my application but doesn't restart it(doesn't get to the pause line in the batch file) - i guess that when my application is terminated it also kills the batch operation.

how can i detach the batch from the application, or is there other way to make my batch run from the application indepentlly?

thanks,

Samy

Anthony Mushrow30-Nov-07 5:41

Anthony Mushrow

30-Nov-07 5:41

You could just try Process.Start(path + "ResetApp.bat");

Alternitavely, you could try starting your form, from within the OnFormClosed event, which gets fired:

[STAThread]
private static int Main(string[] args)
{
	Application.Run(new MainForm());
	//HERE
}

After the form has closed, but before your program actually ends.
^ This is of course assuming your using forms, and its not a console app.

My current favourite word is: PIE!

I have changed my name to my regular internet alias. But don't let the 'Genius' part fool you, you don't know what 'SK' stands for.
-The Undefeated

led mike30-Nov-07 5:46

30-Nov-07 5:46

You start the application back up immediately so you must want it running? But it's already running so..... what the heck are you doing?

samy10030-Nov-07 6:22

samy100

30-Nov-07 6:22

i want to have the abillity to restart it remottly (if for some reason duriing its operation somthing went wrong)

any way found my problem in the batch - kill shouldn't use /T that kills all related proccess.

thanks

led mike30-Nov-07 6:28