RE: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises
I thought that .net remoting is kind of out-of-date and shouldn't be used because of all of the new technologies. Or is it out-of-date? And now you're making me question my plans for my first Open Source project that I was going to put up in a year or two. I was going to have it use WCF hosted as a Windows Service to talk to some other modules like ADLDS and stuff like that but now I should maybe rethink Project Jenks. Or is WCF appropriate for talking to things like that? Such as, one of my ideas for Jenks (it is going to be a bunch of things; modules that one can plug into a single interface as needed), is to create a sort of contact-management interface that links to both my web site (or any web site for that matter), and to ADLDS. And for the ADLDS part, I would have it's directory access module piggy-back on Microsoft's provided web service interface. PowerShell already uses it, but why not create another interface other than ADSIEdit for managing ADLDS too? So hopefully in the coming months and year, you should see something on CodePlex if I can ever get all of this backlog on learning programming out of the way. I've been so busy and have had to give up some things for now due to prioritization. Programming is secondary to me at the moment, so it's more important that my Microsoft certification process gets underway. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Paul Glavich Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 10:10 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises At the risk of being argumentative, we asked for this. Maybe not you or me specifically, but the community at large has. I agree the number of technologies at play, particularly in this space is large but it makes it all the more *interesting* to make those architectural choices. In some ways, less choice is better as the number of possibilities and combinations are less, thus decisions are more constrained and easier to get to. However, the flexibility afforded to us now is great. The better technologies will rise, the lesser ones either improved, integrated or discarded and this is our task. In a properly architected system, the risk of choice of a communications technology can be mitigated. However, we are also human and can introduce dependencies where in hindsight, this was a bad thing. We live and learn. It goes back to the circle of dev life previously mentioned. Never believe the hype. Accept it for what it is, experience it, come to an informed decision based on that, and your educated judgement. Remember, .Net remoting is still there :) - Glav From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.commailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Price Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013 11:52 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises I must be getting old too Greg. Your rants are starting to make sense. I'm even nodding my head as I read. I've said it before, they invent this stuff faster than anyone can learn it. Lets hope its heading in the right direction. For the children's sake. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Greg Keogh g...@mira.netmailto:g...@mira.net wrote: Folks, I'm pleased to see that other people here are irritated by the number of choices we have for communication and by the complexity of WCF. I was also pleased to see someone else was bewlidered by having WebAPI buried inside MVC and found a way of starting with a managable skeleton project. Luckily I can delay my confusion over using WCF or whatever else is trendy this week, as the core working code of my service is actually inside a neutral DLL. I can write and test this code totally independly of how it will be published, then later I can wrap it in thin code to publish it in whatever ways I want. That will give me time to fiddle around with Web API. Overall though, I'm getting utterly fed-up with the number of technologies, kits, standards, languages, scripts, dependencies, conventions, platforms, etc. Every month I get the MSDN magazine posted to me and I dread opening it to see how many dozen new acronymns have been invented and discover how all of my old apps are obsolete because there is a new and better things to do it. I must be getting old too, as I pine for the previous decades of programming where there was less choice and everything just goddamn worked and was documented. Now I spend whole days futzing around to try something out or desperately searching the Internet for clues on an incomprehensible errors. There was a time when you could feel good as being a well-rounded programmer with good general knowledge. These days it's practically impossible to be well-rounded in every significant aspect of programming without experimenting and studying 18 hours every day and skipping eating and bathing. It's like trying to understand every working part of a Jumbo
Re: New Web API project
http://clear-measure.com/i-have-a-web-forms-custom-application-should-i-upgrade-to-asp-net-mvc-now-or-wait/ On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Heinrich Breedt heinrichbre...@gmail.comwrote: this might help: http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/2012/Aug/07/Where-does-ASPNET-Web-API-Fit On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Katherine Moss katherine.m...@gordon.edu wrote: Yes, WebAPI is wrapped inside of MVC4. And there’s another thing that just makes me mad; when people want to rewrite their application for the heck of it just so that they can be deployed under the latest fad. The folks from Yet Another Forum are now saying that their project could be moved and rewritten as ASP.net MVC too, and for what? To look cool? Apparently, and what’s wrong with a project that is written in Web Forms and doing fine? I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. And once that changes, if it does, other folks who use YAF will be screwed including those at Sueetie, who make a great product all based on Web Forms. Though web forms and MVC can work together, though it’s not as simple as one would think. If you want MVC, then use Web Forms MVP. And who said WCF is pointless middleware? Isn’t it a good way to create web services? And if not for WCF, what’s next? Back to ASMX from 2006? Come on! Anyway, guys, I’m sorry for the rant, but I had to get it out somewhere, right? ** ** *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Keogh *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:50 PM *To:* ozDotNet *Subject:* Re: New Web API project ** ** Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone, that link looks sensible and will save a lot of suffering -- Greg -- Heinrich Breedt “Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.” - William B. Sprague -- Heinrich Breedt “Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.” - William B. Sprague
RE: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises
I thought that .net remoting is kind of out-of-date It kinda is and my mention at it was a failed attempt at some humour. Sorry bout that. As to your OSS project, I would hate to discourage you in any way and I don't know enough what you plan to do to recommend a particular technology. WCF is a very capable tech, and as some have already mentioned, can be a little daunting. I would be looking at your ideal way of exposing your information, who would consume it, and how they would typically consume this, and base your decision on that. Talking to AD is usually (in my experience) not done via WCF but through LDAP or something like that. WCF (and other similar technologies) are more around exposing of services or even components. I was writing an information consumption app a while back (one of the million pet projects I nearly completed) that used WCF to allow plugging in of any type of module to consume any type of information simply by implementing an interface so its definitely a reasonable choice. - Glav From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Katherine Moss Sent: Monday, 4 February 2013 5:25 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises I thought that .net remoting is kind of out-of-date and shouldn't be used because of all of the new technologies. Or is it out-of-date? And now you're making me question my plans for my first Open Source project that I was going to put up in a year or two. I was going to have it use WCF hosted as a Windows Service to talk to some other modules like ADLDS and stuff like that but now I should maybe rethink Project Jenks. Or is WCF appropriate for talking to things like that? Such as, one of my ideas for Jenks (it is going to be a bunch of things; modules that one can plug into a single interface as needed), is to create a sort of contact-management interface that links to both my web site (or any web site for that matter), and to ADLDS. And for the ADLDS part, I would have it's directory access module piggy-back on Microsoft's provided web service interface. PowerShell already uses it, but why not create another interface other than ADSIEdit for managing ADLDS too? So hopefully in the coming months and year, you should see something on CodePlex if I can ever get all of this backlog on learning programming out of the way. I've been so busy and have had to give up some things for now due to prioritization. Programming is secondary to me at the moment, so it's more important that my Microsoft certification process gets underway. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Paul Glavich Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 10:10 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises At the risk of being argumentative, we asked for this. Maybe not you or me specifically, but the community at large has. I agree the number of technologies at play, particularly in this space is large but it makes it all the more *interesting* to make those architectural choices. In some ways, less choice is better as the number of possibilities and combinations are less, thus decisions are more constrained and easier to get to. However, the flexibility afforded to us now is great. The better technologies will rise, the lesser ones either improved, integrated or discarded and this is our task. In a properly architected system, the risk of choice of a communications technology can be mitigated. However, we are also human and can introduce dependencies where in hindsight, this was a bad thing. We live and learn. It goes back to the circle of dev life previously mentioned. Never believe the hype. Accept it for what it is, experience it, come to an informed decision based on that, and your educated judgement. Remember, .Net remoting is still there :) - Glav From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Price Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013 11:52 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises I must be getting old too Greg. Your rants are starting to make sense. I'm even nodding my head as I read. I've said it before, they invent this stuff faster than anyone can learn it. Lets hope its heading in the right direction. For the children's sake. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Greg Keogh g...@mira.net mailto:g...@mira.net wrote: Folks, I'm pleased to see that other people here are irritated by the number of choices we have for communication and by the complexity of WCF. I was also pleased to see someone else was bewlidered by having WebAPI buried inside MVC and found a way of starting with a managable skeleton project. Luckily I can delay my confusion over using WCF or whatever else is trendy this week, as the core working code of my service is actually
Re: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises
Apparently the .NET remoting documentation has been removed and you have to hunt around in the archives for it now (I haven't looked myself), so that's probably a hint about being out-of-date. However, I have a sentimental feeling for remoting as we have an intensely used client-server app out there that will have its 10th birthday later this year, so by the date you can tell it started in Framework 1.0 with Remoting. A newer app from last year uses WCF and despite the extra work it gives us no particular advantage and it works just the same. If don't need all the hyped flexibility and generalisation that WCF give you then it doesn't contribute much. If you just want two .NET app ends to talk over tcp or pipe with minimal configuration or code bloat then remoting is still viable. I have a tiny utility project with minimal remoting server and client classes that I throw into a project if I quickly need two things to communicate. However, there is little need for it lately as loading stuff into an AppDomain and talking via a proxy is easier, and guess what ... it uses remoting internally to talk between AppDomains. So remoting isn't dead, it's just gone into hiding. Greg
Re: Transcription software
Ask Hanselman .. he is always transcripting his recordings. I think he is using an actual person (elance, taskarmy) for few cents an hour. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Greg Low (GregLow.com) g...@greglow.comwrote: Hi Folks, ** ** Anyone know if there’s anything better than Dragon for transcription software? ** ** Regards, ** ** Greg ** ** Dr Greg Low CEO and Principal Mentor *SQL Down Under*** SQL Server MVP and Microsoft Regional Director 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913fax Web: www.sqldownunder.com * * ** **
Re: SPAM-LOW Re: WCF service best practises
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Paul Glavich subscripti...@theglavs.comwrote: At the risk of being argumentative, we asked for this. Maybe not you or me specifically, but the community at large has. I agree the number of technologies at play, particularly in this space is large but it makes it all the more **interesting** to make those architectural choices. In some ways, less choice is better as the number of possibilities and combinations are less, thus decisions are more constrained and easier to get to. ** ** However, the flexibility afforded to us now is great. The better technologies will rise, the lesser ones either improved, integrated or discarded and this is our task. In a properly architected system, the risk of choice of a communications technology can be mitigated. However, we are also human and can introduce dependencies where in hindsight, this was a bad thing. We live and learn. It goes back to the “circle of dev life” previously mentioned. Never believe the hype. Accept it for what it is, experience it, come to an informed decision based on that, and your educated judgement. Remember, .Net remoting is still there J ** By that token, so is DCOM. (bitter laughter) -- Meski http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough - Adam Hills
RE: Transcription software
Hi Corneliu, Yes, I’ve always come back to using real people. I was just wondering what the state of the technology was now. Regards, Greg Dr Greg Low 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax SQL Down Under | Web: http://www.sqldownunder.com/ www.sqldownunder.com From: Corneliu I. Tusnea [mailto:corne...@acorns.com.au] Sent: Monday, 4 February 2013 9:26 AM To: g...@greglow.com; ozDotNet Subject: Re: Transcription software Ask Hanselman .. he is always transcripting his recordings. I think he is using an actual person (elance, taskarmy) for few cents an hour. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Greg Low (GregLow.com) g...@greglow.com mailto:g...@greglow.com wrote: Hi Folks, Anyone know if there’s anything better than Dragon for transcription software? Regards, Greg Dr Greg Low CEO and Principal Mentor SQL Down Under SQL Server MVP and Microsoft Regional Director 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 tel:%2B61%20419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 tel:%2B61%203%208676%204913 fax Web: http://www.sqldownunder.com/ www.sqldownunder.com
A book on DbContext
Folks, I almost ordered this book: http://www.bookware.com.au/cgi-bin/bookware/9781449312961 As I'm using VS2012 and the latest Entity Framework for Framework 4 (not 4.5 yet). The templates have changed a fair bit and now they use DbContext by default. However ... I'm afraid the book is already outdated by recent EF releases. Can anyone confirm this so I don't waste $27.95 + postage? There doesn't seem to be any EF book out at the moment which is right up-to-date. Things are changing so rapidly that perhaps the authors don't won't to waste time. Let know if you know otherwise. Greg P.S. The book is rather thin and I could probably learn everything in it by reading the online docs, but I find I can better absorb new information by reading analogue pages when I'm relaxed in the comfy chair.
