|
pmarfleet wrote: Are you too lazy, or too stupid to do them yourself?
That's a given. He was too lazy and stupid to get the responses when he first posted this. He needs an IQ upgrade just to reach single digit figures.
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is so awesome it almost deserves to be stickied.
I mean... How to sticky thread in XML and Web2.0 using AI? Plz send codes as soon as possible? URGENT!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Churchill wrote: How to sticky thread in XML and Web2.0 using AI? Plz send codes as soon as possible? URGENT!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I am going to say it again...
Nice
Second
Message
Get a clue... this site does not exist to do work for people. It exists to help.
Big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I am trying to develop desktop sharing application like VNC .
In VNC there is use of hooks to capture changes. I want to know that is there any way to get screen updates other than hooks?
Thanks,
Ravi.
|
|
|
|
|
We have the standard Production, QA and Dev environments on our web site. We use them for the obvious purposes. What we want is to use Team Foundation Server to do source control.
I just started here and I have been tasked with figuring out how to do this correctly. Currently, we have three different projects in the source control, which represent each of the environments. I do not think this is correct. I have read a lot of literature about this and nothing seems to make sense. We do not publish the entire application to the web servers, instead we put up individual pages when they are changed. We need to support the following standard things:
1. Ability to know what is in the three environments at any given time
2. Ability to roll back to previous (tested and correct) versions of the web site in any environment
3. Ability to know what changes are tested and verified in QA and Dev, so we can promote code
4. We need to ensure that changes are not made in production until they are tested in the QA environment.
5. We need to sync the source control with the versions on the servers, so that developers will be able to pull a copy of the 'server version' from source control directly. Right now, to do that, you have to pull the source control version and then update the files from the web server... which is stupid because they should always be the same.
Standard stuff... I think?
I have read so many articles about this it's making my head spin. Certainly this is not hard enough to justify 500-page documents???
http://www.codeplex.com/TFSGuide/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=6280[^]
What is the simple way to do this? My proposal is to eliminate two of the current project repositories, and only have one, which we would make a branch from, do development on the branch, and then merge the development back into the main branch when it's done, apply a label to the result after the merge, and promote that label to production when it has been tested in QA... but I think I'm missing something with that.
I want this to be simple, or nobody will do it. We want to avoid making changes directly in production. We should be able to eliminate all temptation to do that. People requesting changes will just have to deal with the new policy of reviewing the changes in QA before they are put to production.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are getting it a bit backwards. Generally you do the bulk of your development on the trunk.
If you have a smaller project then you can just take a release, version it and push that thru QA and release.
On a larger project you might choose to branch off a release, and only apply "serious" fixes to the current release branch (still doing QA on the fixes), merging that back into the trunk.
Having multiple source control systems is just going to lead to disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Churchill wrote: Having multiple source control systems is just going to lead to disaster.
This I agree with. I was surprised to see it like that. I think you are correct that we should only have one project, with not many branches or anything. We don't have multiple versions of the project... it is all one big thing, with constant updating going on - a typical web site for a large company.
The result is a fairly nice site... but from the code... you wouldn't think so. It is a heterogeneous environment, with SQL Server and Oracle, several 3rd party applications, and a mixture of Cold Fusion and ASP.Net stuff...
Here is the result:
http://www.awwa.org/[^]
This organization does a lot of good for the world, so I'm not afraid to do a little promotion. There isn't much there for the average Joe, but it's interesting to me anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
Jasmine2501 wrote: Certainly this is not hard enough to justify 500-page documents???
Well I pretty sure that document covers a lot more than just Source Control. However, in any problem solving scenario many solutions provide only partial coverage of the problem space or even introduce a new set of problems, hence the potential complexity of any given problem space.
Jasmine2501 wrote: What is the simple way to do this? My proposal is to eliminate two of the current project repositories, and only have one,
I don't know if it is "the" simple way but I agree with Mark that it is a common approach.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
I've been studying the different variations of the MVP pattern, and I think I've come up with my own variant[^]. For now, it's just a theory, but if anyone finds it useful, I'll write up an example for it. What do you guys think? 
|
|
|
|
|
I like it... but it has been tried before and it seems that in practice it never quite works out...
|
|
|
|
|
Jasmine2501 wrote: I like it... but it has been tried before and it seems that in practice it never quite works out...
Hmm...Why doesn't it quite work out? Is it because of the dependency on the IoC container?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is because developers are too lazy to not write their own complete system.
XML was supposed to solve this problem for the web... isolate the presenter from the view...
|
|
|
|
|
It would certainly make it easier to test. It would be very powerful when mocking.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I am in the trouber of the error while the project trys to saving the data to child table. The error message
is shown below:
NHibernate.ADOException: could not insert: [ConsoleApplication1.user][SQL: INSERT INTO user (UNAME, NID) VALUES (?, ?)] --->
So confused that why it cannot get values to save. NHibernate I used is version 1.2. The code files are list below, please help me out here.
Thanks in advance.
app.config:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<configuration>
<configSections>
<section name="nhibernate" type="System.Configuration.NameValueSectionHandler, System, Version=1.2.0.4000,Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"/>
</configSections>
<nhibernate>
<add key="hibernate.connection.provider" value="NHibernate.Connection.DriverConnectionProvider"/>
<add key="hibernate.dialect" value="NHibernate.Dialect.MsSql2005Dialect"/>
<add key="hibernate.connection.driver_class" value="NHibernate.Driver.SqlClientDriver"/>
<add key="hibernate.connection.connection_string" value="Server=;initial catalog=;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=;Password="/>
</nhibernate>
</configuration>
user.hbm.xml:
<hibernate-mapping default-cascade="none" xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2">
<class name="ConsoleApplication1.user, ConsoleApplication1" table="user">
<id name="UID" type="System.Int32" column="UID" unsaved-value="0">
<generator class="native" />
</id>
<property name="UNAME" type="System.String" column="UNAME" not-null="false" />
<many-to-one name="Nationality" class="ConsoleApplication1.nationality, ConsoleApplication1" fetch="select" cascade="all">
<column name="NID" not-null="false" />
</many-to-one>
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
user.hbm.cs:
namespace ConsoleApplication1 {
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
public class Abstractuser {
private int uID;
private string uNAME;
private ConsoleApplication1.nationality nationality;
public virtual int UID {
get {
return this.uID;
}
set {
this.uID = value;
}
}
public virtual string UNAME {
get {
return this.uNAME;
}
set {
this.uNAME = value;
}
}
public virtual ConsoleApplication1.nationality Nationality {
get {
return this.nationality;
}
set {
this.nationality = value;
}
}
}
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
public partial class user : Abstractuser {
}
}
nationality.hbm.xml:
<hibernate-mapping default-cascade="none" xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2">
<class name="ConsoleApplication1.nationality, ConsoleApplication1" table="nationality">
<id name="NID" type="System.Int32" column="NID" unsaved-value="0">
<generator class="native" />
</id>
<property name="NATIONALITY" type="System.String" column="NATIONALITY" not-null="false" />
<bag name="User" inverse="true" lazy="true" cascade="all">
<key>
<column name="NID" not-null="false" />
</key>
<one-to-many class="ConsoleApplication1.user, ConsoleApplication1" />
</bag>
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
nationality.hbm.cs:
namespace ConsoleApplication1 {
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlIncludeAttribute(typeof(ConsoleApplication1.user))]
[System.Xml.Serialization.SoapIncludeAttribute(typeof(ConsoleApplication1.user))]
public class Abstractnationality {
private int nID;
private string nATIONALITY;
private System.Collections.IList user;
public virtual int NID {
get {
return this.nID;
}
set {
this.nID = value;
}
}
public virtual string NATIONALITY {
get {
return this.nATIONALITY;
}
set {
this.nATIONALITY = value;
}
}
public virtual System.Collections.IList User {
get {
return this.user;
}
set {
this.user = value;
}
}
}
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
public partial class nationality : Abstractnationality {
}
}
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration cfg = new NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration();
cfg.AddAssembly("ConsoleApplication1");
ISessionFactory factory = cfg.BuildSessionFactory();
ISession session = factory.OpenSession();
ITransaction transaction = session.BeginTransaction();
nationality nat = (nationality)session.Get(typeof(nationality), 1);
user u = new user();
u.UNAME = "Pall";
u.Nationality = nat;
nat.User.Add(u);
try
{
if (!session.IsConnected)
{
session.Reconnect();
}
session.Save(u); // Error occured at this line!!
transaction.Commit();
session.Close();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
string s = e.ToString();
}
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Harry Sun wrote: NHibernate.ADOException: could not insert: [ConsoleApplication1.user][SQL: INSERT INTO user (UNAME, NID) VALUES (?, ?)]
Those question-marks are parameter placeholders. You are using generator=Native... is your UID column set to Identity?
Otherwise check the InnerException property.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply. I know I did something terrible, just because was not for sure which catalogue this question should be in. I will never do that again. Thanks again. Please forgive me.
|
|
|
|
|
A user add different kinds of shapes on a panel depending on where he clicked on the panel and a shape is display. I am calling addeShape() function when a user click on the panel. Everything is ok up to this point.
But now lets say a shaped is selected and now a user want to added another shape on the top of the existing shape the user has to add shape first on the panel by clicking on the panel, the shape appears and then the user has to drag on the location he wants it to be.
What i want to do is even if an existing shape is selected and a new shape is begin added on the top of the existing shape I want to be able to add on the top of it. Rather than clicking first on the panel and then drag on the desired location.
How can i solve this puzzle. Any input will be highly appreciated.
Thansk
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm working on my second project at the moment that makes use of a 3-layer model. On my first project I had circular dependencies so that the data layer could hydrate and return a business object and take one as a parameter to save it back to the database. This worked fairly well although it was rather complicated.
This time round I'm creating the data layer so that it takes individual values of a business object - strings, integers, etc - in order to save the objects, and it similarly returns the individual values through reference parameters to allow the business layer to hydrate objects.
The second method seems to be making everything a lot simpler, however I've run into a little problem. With the first method when I wanted to get a collection of business objects the data layer would just create a collection and add each object into that before returning it. With the less coupled second method I cannot do this and must rely on the business layer to create a collection based on the values returned by the database. The problem I'm facing is that, without creating extra classes in the data layer just to store records from the database, I can't see a way of getting the data back to the business layer.
I've read as much material on data layers as I can find, but none of it seems to cover this sort of thing. Has anyone got any ideas how to overcome this without creating extra classes which mimic those in the business layer?
Regards,
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
CaptainMatt wrote: The second method seems to be making everything a lot simpler, however I've run into a little problem.
Have you not recognized the seeming contradiction in your statement? Systems will have complexity if they do anything much at all, period. There is no getting away from it. You might find Grady Booch's Turing lecture[^] from last year interesting.
All you have done is abandon an object oriented design for a procedural design. With that will come all the well known problems of a procedural solution. Your previous experience with complexity may seem like a cake walk by the time you are done. 
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply,
I realise that a completely object oriented design is most probably the correct way to go. However, half of the material I've read on creating data layers recommend using the procedural approach. I thought it might be a good idea to try it out and see how it goes, apparently not too well though.
Since my first message I've made a start on re-writing the layer using objects. At the same time though I'm still interested in how the people who have taken this route have done this sort of thing or if extra data-only objects are used.
Another reason my previous object oriented design was rather difficult to work with was that I initially followed an article that created persistence objects for every business object. A single persistence/database/storage object to persist the whole system makes things easier.
Regards,
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
While my experience in developing apps that have Datalayers is extensive, I have never extensively studied the problem domain. What I have picked up from direct experience and random discussions and articles is that the work and/or complexities associated with this domain have not been eliminated.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
The common way people end up writing their DAL seems to be creating a procedural CRUD interface, which hits stored procedures in the DB ("for security" / "for performance"). This is generally done because people aren't leveraging the metadata features of the language.
Also people like to use the Enterprise Data Access Block. So much so that they use it for general data access - when its really just a database abstraction kit - when they have no plans to ever switch database vendors. That ends up locking them out of a whole heap of cool tools :P
In .Net at least, its possible to make a generic persistance layer that can operate on any business object which is correctly tagged up with persistance attributes. With a smattering of generics you can have a single persistence layer that isn't aware of your business objects.
The way we do this is using reflection to read attributes that map the object model to the database schema. Reflection does have a small performance overhead - but you can make up for that by flexible queries - for example joining on referenced records in one round-trip. It also lets you provide generic FindByX routines, etc.
So, yes, it is possible - and its a lot better than having to keep a whole bunch of structures that are only used for passing data between tiers maintained
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with a completely object-oriented approach is that it doesn't work so well for a server scenario. Getting a bunch of data and instantiating a huge collection of instances is sort of useless if all you'll do with those instances is to serialize them and send off the data as, say, XML to a client somewhere, then discard all the objects. Likewise, deserializing a stream of (updated) data to a collection of objects and then use reflection or some other run-time schema mapping is rather useless.
In a desktop scenario it sure is nice. Bind the grid to your objects and when the user changes something, modify the instances you've already loaded. When he saves, call Save(). It's great. But it doesn't work like that on a server, because you can't keep all those objects alive between the user reading the data and wanting to save.
Which is why there is so much talk about "service" orientation. They say its "stateless objects" but without state it isn't really an object at all! Object-orientation is all about encapsulation. Service-orientation sacrifices that, because there's hardly any point protecting the state of an object that is used as little more than a serialization/deserializtion mechanism for SQL Server data...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm not quite sure I get what the problem is, but I'm attempting to give input based on the assumption that the problem is duplication of the same logic in the data access and busienss logic code. If so, a possible solution might be to derive the business classes from the data access classes. That is, make your data access classes so they contain all data storage for the type - as protected fields - and the knowledge of how to read/write those fields to and from persistent storage. Then derive business classes from these and publish those parts of the data that should be possible to directly manipulate from the outside using properties, adding validation logic as appropriate. (Some validation might be more appropriate in the DAL; there is a grey zone here. "Name cannot be more than 50 characters" might be considered data access logic or business logic; at first glance it only depends on the data store and as such could be considered DAL logic, but then again it might actually affect the layout of reports and what have you. In my view, it is simpler to keep all validation in one place, and if so it is undoubtedly the business layer that should do it.)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
