Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'rantish'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Heads-Up! VeriSign Code Signing (Microsoft Authenticode) Certificates $99.00

    - by Edward Boyle
    Recently I posted an article about my Code Signing certificate from GoDaddy. I went with GoDaddy because it is an accepted certificate that should bring no problems; I would have preferred a VeriSign certificate but could not justify the extra $400.00 for the brand considering it truly was not required to meet my needs. I have been around since the day where VeriSign was really the only certificate (SSL) you could get unless you went with the then rogue South African company Thawte, since acquired by VeriSign. Today, I feel out of the loop – very out of the loop. I went to check into Windows Logo requirements, this leads me to this page, that then leads me to this page where I click on the “Digital Certificate’s” Link that leads to this page: So just a heads-up, $99.00 Code Signing Certificate from VeriSign!

    Read the article

  • The embarrassingly obvious about SQL Server CE

    - by Edward Boyle
    I have been working with SQL servers in one form or another for almost two decades now. But I am new to SQL Server Compact Edition. In the past weeks I have been working with SQL Serve CE a lot. The SQL, not a problem, but the engine itself is very new to me. One of the issues I ran into was a simple SQL statement taking excusive amounts of time; by excessive, I mean over one second. I wrote a little code to time the method. Sometimes it took under one second, other times as long as three seconds. –But it was a simple update statement! As embarrassing as it is, why it was slow eluded me. I posted my issue to MSDN and I got a reply from ErikEJ (MS MVP) who runs the blog “Everything SQL Server Compact” . I know little to nothing about SQL Server Compact. This guy is completely obsessed very well versed in CE. If you spend any time in MSDN forums, it seems that this guy single handedly has the answer for every CE question that comes up. Anyway, he said: “Opening a connection to a SQL Server Compact database file is a costly operation, keep one connection open per thread (incl. your UI thread) in your app, the one on the UI thread should live for the duration of your app.” It hit me, all databases have some connection overhead and SQL Server CE is not a database engine running as a service drinking Jolt Cola waiting for someone to talk to him so he can spring into action and show off his quarter-mile sprint capabilities. Imagine if you had to start the SQL Server process every time you needed to make a database connection. Principally, that is what you are doing with SQL Server CE. For someone who has worked with Enterprise Level SQL Servers a lot, I had to come to the mental image that my Open connection to SQL Server CE is basically starting a service, my own private service, and by closing the connection, I am shutting down my little private service. After making the changes in my code, I lost any reservations I had with using CE. At present, my Data Access Layer class has a constructor; in that constructor I open my connection, I also have OpenConnection and CloseConnection methods, I also implemented IDisposable and clean up any connections in Dispose(). I am still finalizing how this assembly will function. – That’s beside the point. All I’m trying to say is: “Opening a connection to a SQL Server Compact database file is a costly operation”

    Read the article

  • //TODO: Test this thoroughly!!!!!!

    - by Edward Boyle
    I just ran into an ugly sight in my code: //TODO: Test this thoroughly!!!!!! private void ... I would very much like to go back in time and ask the past me what I meant, why did I add that TODO:? …And then, smack the s%#t out of him. No matter how much testing I do of this code I will always wonder if the past me found something. Was it actually that code or was it a calling method that may bring unwanted results. The fact that I find absolutely nothing wrong with the code makes it that much more haunting. The moral of the story; when you find something wrong and need to test it thoroughly, stay up another hour testing it. The clarity in your head at that moment, on that issue, at that specific moment in time, would take hours worth of commenting to justify not finishing it now. Maybe what I meant was: // TODO: Test this thoroughly!!!!!! // All seems fine but test it just in case, not to worry. private void ... Doubt it. -I’m screwed.

    Read the article

  • AutoScroll panel working intermittently.

    - by Edward Boyle
    I spent hours last week trying to get AutoScroll to function properly on a derived/inherited panel control I have been writing. I found no answers on my own so I posted to several forums and move onto other code while I wait for a reply. Then out of nowhere, it started working properly. Now, Today (about a week later) I notice it is no longer working again!  I go back to those old posts with hopes I will find an answer – No such luck. I Google for about two hours reading everything I come across. I was just about to write a new custom control from the ground up, perhaps use a little unmanaged code to force things to function properly. All I knew was “options in front of me = dealys”.  Just before I gave up, my head in my hands,  Jordan Sirwin’s appropriately titled blog post: “C#: Windows Panel AutoScroll Bug / Intended Suckyness” saves the day! In order for scroll bars to display, there must be at least one control in the Panel with AutoSize set to true. This is absurd… I’m not sure if this is a bug or intended, but it’s stupid. –I feel your pain. How many others have spent hours on this, or worse,  just plain given up? I want those hours back Damnit!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Web Forms is bad, or what am I missing?

    - by iveqy
    Being a PHP guy myself I recently had to write a spider to an asp.net site. I was really surprised by the different approach to ajax and form-handling. For example, in the PHP sites I've worked with, a deletion of a database entry would be something like: GET delete.php?id=&confirm=yes and get a "success" back in some form (in the ajax case, probably a json reply). In this asp.net application you would instead post a form, including all inputs on the page, with a huge __VIEWSTATE and __EVENTVALIDATION. This would be more than 10 times as big as above. The reply would be the complete side again, with a footer containing some structured data for javascript to parse and display the result. Again, the whole page is sent, and then throwed away(?) since it's already displayed. Why not just send the footer with the data to parse (it's not json nor xml but a | separated list). I really can't see why you would design a system that way. Usually you've a fast client, and a somewhat fast server but a really slow connection. Why not keep the datatransfer to a minimum? Why those huge __VIEWSTATE and __EVENTVALIDATION? It seems that everything is done way to chatty and way to complicated. I really can't see the point and that usually means that I'm missing something. So please tell me, what are the reasons for this design and what benefits (and weaknesses) does it have? (Yes I know that __VIEWSTATE is used to tell what type of form-konfiguration should be sent back to the server. But WHY is this needed?) Please keep this discussion strictly technical and avoid flamewars. Update: Please excuse the somewhat rantish question. I tried to explain my view to be able to get a better answer. I am not saying that asp.net is bad, I am saying that I don't understand the meaning of those concepts. Usually that means that I've things to learn instead of the concepts beeing wrong. I appreciate the explanations about that "you don't have to do this way in asp.net", I'll read up on MVC and other .net technologies. However, there most be a reason for this site (the one I referred to) to be written the way it is. It's written by professionals for a big organisation with far more experience than what I've. Any explanation about their (possible) design choice would be welcome.

    Read the article

1