You are correct i probably am running out of memory..will create a FILO buffer for the test
-----Original Message----- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Kean Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:44 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: redirect trace to textbox performance At a wild guess, are you throwing away the trace at all? Or do you just keep adding to the text box? You're probably running out of memory. -----Original Message----- From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Mark Hurd Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:24 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: redirect trace to textbox performance On 23 February 2012 17:17, <ifum...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been redirecting the trace.writeline output to a textbox in > most of my applications. Its works great and helps me resolve issues > very quickly but i find it can decrease the performance of the application dramatically. > > Anyone suggest the better way do this? I am aware of log4net etc but > interested in other people suggestions/opinions. > > I use a sub like this to make it thread safe > > Private Sub objTraceListener_TextChanged(ByVal sText As String) > Handles objTraceListener.TextChanged I haven't actually looked it up to confirm, but I guess the TextChanged event is actually (sender As Object, sText As String) and the infrastructure used to allow alternative event signatures seems a bit "interesting". Whether it is actually a performance issue though, I don't know -- profile it. <snip> > > Anthony > > -- Regards, Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.)
