C#

using System;
using System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary;
using System.IO;
using System.IO.Compression;

[Serializable()]
class SumTestClass
{
    public int TestInt { get; set; }
    public string TestString { get; set; }
    public SumTestClass()
    {
        TestInt = 42;
        TestString = "Hello World";
    }
}

static class Program
{
    static BinaryFormatter bf = new BinaryFormatter();
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        object thingyToSerialize = new SumTestClass();

        // ..or use a memorystream :)
        using (var ms = new FileStream("C:\\Temp\\Test.zip", FileMode.Create)) 
        using (var zs = new GZipStream(ms, CompressionMode.Compress, leaveOpen: true))
        {
            bf.Serialize(zs, thingyToSerialize);
            Console.WriteLine("Stuff saved");
        }
        
        using (var ms = new FileStream("C:\\Temp\\Test.zip", FileMode.Open)) 
        using (var zs = new GZipStream(ms, CompressionMode.Decompress, leaveOpen: true))
        {
            SumTestClass testResult = bf.Deserialize(zs) as SumTestClass;
            Console.WriteLine("String: {0}\nInt: {1}", testResult.TestString, testResult.TestInt);
        }

        Console.ReadLine();
    }
}

Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

BillWoodruff wrote:

"Raising the stakes" from 100k to 1 million total objects yielded a 98+ megabyte MemoryStream that Gzipped to a 30.6mb file with both 'Optimal, and 'Fastest compression. That does make me question the efficiency of Gzip in .NET.

BillWoodruff wrote:

I feel I should write up a Tip-Trick for CP.

Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

Alternatively, one could launch an external process and wait forthe command to finish. And suddenly, one can easily switch out the ZIP and try an ARJ, or a LHArc

BillWoodruff wrote:

would add an "overhead" that would negate its benefit.

BillWoodruff wrote:

SharpCompress, SharpZipLib

Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

BBatts wrote:

Is it better to use timers or threads?

BBatts wrote:

Plus with threads, you don't have to worry about it calling it self until you
want it to.

BBatts wrote:

because I can end them all with a single line of code

BBatts wrote:

System.Thread there is more direct control over when and how the thread is
fired.

BBatts wrote:

I can't think of any reason to use a Timer as opposed to System.Thread...in a
windows service

Quote:

I have a service that has multiple process running at the same time (6-10)

private void WorkerThread_DoWork()
{
  while (contiueWorking)
  {
    //Perform Some Task

    System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10000);
  }
}

// Declaration:
System.Threading.Timer _timer;

//Initialization:
_timer = new System.Threading.Timer(OnTimer, null, 10000, System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite);

private void OnTimer(object state) {
   try {
      // Do your stuff here
   } catch (Exception ex) {
      // Errorhandling  
   } finally {
      // the first parameter is the delay until the callback method will be called again
      // the second parameter defines the interval in which it will be rais. Timeout.Infition -> Disabled
      _timer.Change(10000, System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite);
   }
}

_timer.Change(System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite, System.Threading.Timeout.Infinite);