Uncle! :)
Ian Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >2) To call blocking APIs
>
> That's what I was looking for. If we eliminate blocking IO API's
> then there isn't a need to spawn off threads.
Sure, but often once you've eliminated the blocking IO APIs you're left
with nothing, because there t
> >2) To call blocking APIs
>
> That's what I was looking for. If we eliminate blocking IO API's
> then there isn't a need to spawn off threads.
Sure, but often once you've eliminated the blocking IO APIs you're left
with nothing, because there turn out not to be non-blocking equivalents.
But t
I just bought this yesterday.
Regards,
J. Vince Pacella / OOCL Chicago
Cell 773-454-8683 Fax - 773-867-5050
Cargo Tracking Online at:
www.cargosmart.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mitch Go
Oh I forgot -- I like the cover too!
I have yet to set the book face down.
Eric
> -Original Message-
> From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eric Wild
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:05 PM
> To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
>
I'm reading that book right now, and it is excellent!
The book loooks like a for dummies boook, but it is not. It introduces
different programmers, a guru programmer, a skeptical programmer and a
number of others. The skeptical programmer is the best though. She always
wears black, and alw
HA, and considering he's currently 20yrld, I'm sure he'll love the
cover.
Everyone, thank you very much.
R. Joe Reich
System Analyst
Comcast Communications, Inc.
Phone: 248.233.4512
Fax: 248.233.4788
Cell: 734.476.4844
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Mes
Thanx, do appreciate it.
R. Joe Reich
System Analyst
Comcast Communications, Inc.
Phone: 248.233.4512
Fax: 248.233.4788
Cell: 734.476.4844
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Sills
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:08 PM
> To: ADVANCE
If he's just getting started, try "Head First Design Patterns". I found
it to be an entertaining and educational read.
http://www.bookpool.com/sm/0596007124
Reich, Joe wrote:
All this talk of patterns has motivated me to dig out my GoF book that
apparently never got unpacked when I moved.
One ques
looks like a great resource. thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Sills
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:08 PM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Most appropriate des
Design Patterns Explained:
A New Perspective on Object-Oriented Design
(Second Edition)
by Alan Shalloway
and James R. Trott
http://www.netobjectives.com/dpexplained/
HTH
- Adwait
--
Adwait Ullal
e: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.adwait.com
j: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Adwa
I've found the book Design Patterns in C# by Steven John Metsker to be a
good resource.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Sills
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:08 AM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELO
While it's not a book, dofactory.com has C# examples of all of this with
some examples and short explanation.
http://dofactory.com/patterns/patterns.aspx
Adam..
> -Original Message-
> From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Reich, Jo
All this talk of patterns has motivated me to dig out my GoF book that
apparently never got unpacked when I moved.
One question though, anyone know of any good books that attempt to
condense the GoF book into easier reading? My little brother has
decided to go into the "family business" of softwa
I like the idea of asking the strategy if it can handle the vocabulary
type, but if you allow me to be a further burden on your mind... :-)
To me a message of "can handle" implies that multiple receivers of
said message can handle it; in other words, multiple strategies might
be able to process th
> It seems to me that CoR adds little value to the original question if I
can remember it correctly ;-) The fact that
> it's a chain is not important because it's unlikely that the list of known
processors for the various flavors of the
> document are unknown. Second, this discussion of the CoR cam
Chad,
i believe commerce 3.0's "pipeline" is a realization
of the intercepting filter pattern :)
-saad
--- Chad Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Works better in what way? I can see the value when
> used in a
> hierarchical situation, and I've implemented it in
> that way when
> creating sim
bill,
you can find info on the intercepting filter @
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnpatterns/html/DesInterceptingFilter.asp
the main difference between an intercepting filter and
CoR is that in CoR the request is handled by one
candidate while in intercepting f
> Chain of responsibility is another option for creating them, although if the
> strategy objects are completely different, can be added or removed
> dynamically, or the relationship between the algorithm and the key isn't
> fixed then the factory is generally a better option as it removes the
> co
> If they are different then it makes sense, in my eyes (and I'm myopic, so
give that consideration), to decouple the
> handlers by not allowing them to call their successors. The client (the
pipeline processor in the SSCE example) still
> sets it up, but the client has a little additional respo
Any of the Lsa functions will relay on domain support. So, your best bet is
to enumerate each node, whether it is a workgroup or a domain and then
enumerate all groups and user accounts (beware of Active Directory objects).
Since NT is domain centric with domain lookup, unfortuantely, there
You are corrrect. I was trying to demonstrate what I thought were two
useful approaches to a CoR with the primary difference being the
decoupling between handlers. I believe this better accommodates the
last statement in your last response:
"Chain of responsibility is another option for creating
> Perhaps a good analogy is Site Server Commerce 3.0 and its use of the
"pipeline" (I don't recall if this was in prior versions or not...
> it's been a while). The "pipeline" had a non-hierarchical arrangement of
components that implemented the
> IPipelineComponent interface (I think that was the
> From my perspective, I think you're right on the mark. One thing I'll
> add is that using a "Strategy factory method" will not easily fit the
> purposes here either because using multiple Strategies is actually
> involved in processing a document. I suppose a single Strategy could
> encapsula
Works better in what way? I can see the value when used in a
hierarchical situation, and I've implemented it in that way when
creating simple parsers for custom XML vocabularies.
Perhaps a good analogy is Site Server Commerce 3.0 and its use of the
"pipeline" (I don't recall if this was in prior
Chain of Responsibility works better when handling events in a
hierarchical object (not class) structure, where any given child node
object decides if handles the event or delegate to the parent node
object, think of it like cascading or event bubbling, the original
context of the pattern is handli
"One thing I'll add
is that using a "Strategy factory method" will not easily fit the purposes
here either because using multiple Strategies is actually involved in
processing a document."
That's pertinent information :-) Again, the factory can still be used
to simply *identify and create* the ap
>From my perspective, I think you're right on the mark. One thing I'll add
is that using a "Strategy factory method" will not easily fit the purposes
here either because using multiple Strategies is actually involved in
processing a document. I suppose a single Strategy could encapsulate
multiple s
27 matches
Mail list logo
