Obiwan Jacobi - All Comments

re: WCF: Hosting non-http protocols in IIS 7.0

Jeremy — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:59:40 GMT

I kept getting an error:

The protocol 'net.tcp' does not have an implementation of HostedTransportConfiguration type registered.

After much hunting and trial and error I finally stumbled on the solution. The second command you run to set the protocols for the individual website needs to have the period removed.

Weird thing was it worked on the production server, but not on the test with "net.tcp"

re: How to implement catch (Exception e)?

Gerben van Loon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:43:59 GMT

Cool stuff, so familiar what you describe :)

Would even be nicer to factor this out to some kind of aspect.

re: Silverlight: Breaking the daisy chain?

Michiel van Schaik — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:39:03 GMT

This is where the new Reactive Framework of Microsoft can be used for. The Reactive Framework allows developers to write Language Integrated Query (LINQ) expressions against events.

As Erik Meijer explains in this (channel9.msdn.com/.../Expert-to-Expert-Brian-Beckman-and-Erik-Meijer-Inside-the-NET-Reactive-Framework-Rx) channel9 video, the Reactive Framework is the mathematical dual of LINQ to Objects.

A copy of the Reactive Framework can be found as part of the Silverlight 3 Toolkit, see martinkruszynski.blogspot.com/.../silverlight-toolkit-july-2009-rx.html

Also there will be a PDC'09 session: Rx: Reactive Extensions for .NET

re: Silverlight: Breaking the daisy chain?

Nathan Pledger — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:08:30 GMT

I'm getting this, too. On the negative side, it is easy to get into spaghetti code and frequent refactorings are needed to make sure things remain tidy - while restricting the possibility of deadlocks. On the plus side, I now totally "get" anonymous methods - they're practically essential for sanity's sake. Dunno if this i going to help my previous purist practices, though.

I'd be interested in your results.

re: Why I think Merging Source Code sucks

Ramon Smits — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:33:02 GMT

Merging branches which both have changed dramatically are very hard to do if not impossible.

Linus Torvalds says that changes in the linux kernel etc. will be done by a small team of developers. Only when the change if very well understood then it gets committed. The way that GIT works is that you first create your own personal branch to work on and when you are ready then you ask the maintainer of the /trunk branch to import that changeset. If the maintainer sees that the change conflicts too much because the main trunk has changed much because of - for example - refactoring then he just says that it will not import the change set as it is done on out dates source files. The only way to do a proper change is to add the change on an updated local branch and then asking the trunk maintainer for importing the change.

After reading that I use the same philosophy. I won't merge large code changes on out of date branches. I just delegate it to the developer that implemented the RFC to code it again as too much has changed.

Doing the merging myself is error prone and would take too much time! It would often be faster to just code the RFC myself :)

This immediately brings me to the following MUST versioning/code repository rules:

* Update reqularly (at least once a day)

* Commit often (commit when you have complete a small logical part)

* Changes must NEVER be done on the /trunk directly. First on a seperate branch, then reviewed and changed until satisfied and then be merged in to the main trunk.

Managers MUST check this or even must be notified when a developer has not committed for a while because that would indicate a possible problem.

re: WCF: Hosting non-http protocols in IIS 7.0

Ricardo — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:38:23 GMT

Hi,

Thanks for this post. However I have a concern about all people that shows how to host in WAS with non-HTTP protocols, you are not telling me how can a test that the service is running and how can I add a service reference to that services in my client applications. I have tried a lot. With Http protocols is very easy because in my webbrowser I get the URL I have to use to reach the service, but with TCP I've tried a lot of variants of my address and I can't get it and i dont know if the problem is with the address itself or if the service is not propertly initialize.

Please could you post a complete sample or explanation?

How to enrich a message? | keyongtech

How to enrich a message? | keyongtech — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:07:49 GMT

Pingback from How to enrich a message? | keyongtech

A Method Context Information Gathering Framework

Obiwan Jacobi — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:13:55 GMT

Do you also have that feeling when you type in your tracing code that it is too cumbersome and too much

re: Why I think Merging Source Code sucks

Nathan Pledger — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:39:38 GMT

I've never had the luxury of using Team Foundation Server, but I can appreciate your frustration with source control. We use SVN having "upgraded" from CVS, and the whole concept is brilliant but intrisically flawed. I end up creating milestone backups of repositories "Just in case", because I couldn't trust it at all.

I'm glad I'm not on my own, as it feels at the moment!

re: Singleton Generics [updated]

mezhaka — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:25:52 GMT

the parameter type of the generic needs public default constructor, so the type you're using as a parameter is not singleton object itself. don't you think there maybe problems, when some other member of your team will use this parameter type instead of the using it singletoned with this generic?

re: Ploggle Desktop Application

Dennis van der Stelt — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:52:45 GMT

Leuk, dat Ploggle : http://manuel.ploggle.com/

re: Why do we not design a class like this?

Marc Jacobi — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:47:37 GMT

Taking thing to the extreme is never a good thing (unless its money? ;-).

I would think that you would only need one level in most cases (as my example). Multiple levels of property containers reeks of bad design and might justify actual classes instead of just property structs.

re: Why do we not design a class like this?

dotgrid — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:08:26 GMT

It is a very good point. and might put some sense into building large properties stuffed classes.

But taking it too much to the extreme would make my code page size a lot more wider.

Using an Interop layer with BizTalk

Obiwan Jacobi — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:26:15 GMT

This is my second project in which I used an Interop layer for calling custom code in BizTalk and it

re: Why do we not design a class like this?

Marc Jacobi — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:40:36 GMT

Good point! If you have virtual properties this would probably not be a good idea. If the properties are just plain vanilla properties there would be no problem (I can think of at this moment).