Re: Issues with Interop within a Service

2010-02-11 Thread Mark Hurd 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:50 PM, David Boccabella
 wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> Sorry – I realised I had posted one of the older pieces of code that I was
> trying to track issues with
>
> I am tearing my hair our with this piece of code. I need to use Word within
> a service to convert MHT docs to PDF’s. I can make this work if I use the
> code within a form however not within a service.
>
> Here is the code
>
> Now – everything seems to work well until I try and reference objDoc after
> opening a document. It returns Object reference not set to an instance of an
> object. Whenever I try and see the properties etc.
>
> I desperately need a solution.  All suggestsion re not using Word in
> service, use other product etc cheerfully ignored. I Need to use Word!!!
>
> ---
>
> Private Shared Function ProcessWord(ByVal sFilename As Object, ByVal
> sFilePDF As Object, ByVal iFormat As Integer) As Integer
>
>     Dim sError As String
>
>     'Dim missing As Object = System.Reflection.Missing.Value

Not needed in VB.
>
>     For Each proc As Process In Process.GetProcessesByName("WINWORD")
>
>     proc.Kill()
>
>     Next proc
>
>     sFilename = "c:\temp\siam2.doc"
>
>     sFilePDF = "c:\temp\1.pdf"
>
>     iFormat = 17
>
>     If sFilename.Length > 0 And sFilePDF.Length > 0 Then
>
>     If File.Exists(sFilename) Then
>
>     Dim objApp As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Application
>
>     'Dim objDoc As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Document
>     Dim objDoc As Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Document

You're trying to create this document. No need to create a blank one first.

>     Try
>
>     objApp.Visible = False
>
>     objApp.ScreenUpdating = False
>
>     objApp.DisplayAlerts = WdAlertLevel.wdAlertsNone
>
>     WriteLogEvent("One", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")
>
> '     objDoc = objApp.Documents.Open(sFilename, missing,
> 'missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing,
> 'missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing)
>     objDoc = objApp.Documents.Open(sFilename)

Perhaps you were testing, but VB provides the Missings for you.

Now to the debugging:
Seeing as it is not throwing an exception, I assume there are
situatios when Document.Open can return Nothing.

You could check to see if the document has been opened in any case:
If objDoc Is Nothing Then
 ' I don't know if Normal.dot or other documents are open already,
you may need to adjust the zeros here.
 If objApp.Documents.Count>0 Then _
  objDoc = objApp.Documents(0)
End If
>
>
>     objDoc.Activate()
>
> ERROR HERE!!
>

>
>     objApp.Quit()
>
>     WriteLogEvent("six..", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
> "")
>
>
>
>     Catch ex As Exception
>
>     sError = "ProcessWord Abort:" & sFilename & ":-" &
> ex.Message.ToString
>
>     WriteLogEvent(sError, 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")
>
>     ProcessWord = 4

'I'd add this clean up here
   Try
  objApp.Quit()
   Catch
   End Try
>     End Try
>
>     objDoc = Nothing
>
>     objApp = Nothing
>

> -

-- 
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.)

Re: [OT] Blogging

2010-02-11 Thread Stephen Price 
+1 live writer.

I use Blogger (works with live writer) and have an alias of somekind (I set
up so long ago I can't recall what it is. Cname? Asomething?) so that
blog.lythixdesigns.com (and blog.littlevoices.com for my cartoon blog)
works. Blogger uses my Google login so one less login credentials to
remember.

As for the actual content... well, let's not go there. :)

cheers,
Stephen

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Michael Minutillo <
michael.minuti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For convenience of entering special text (a la source code) I highly
> recommend Windows Live Writer if you are going to start blogging. It is one
> of the better apps that MS produces and there are a few plug-ins for it that
> will format code nicely for you.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, silky  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
>> > Folks, it’s about time I created a “formal” development blog like
>> everyone
>> > else, in one of the familiar formats. What choices are there? I have an
>> > existing web site, so ideally I’d like to just create a virtual folder
>> at
>> > the point I choose and let it live there. Q...
>>
>> FWIW If I were to create a blog, I'd run it from a tumblr.com account,
>> and then just link it from my normal website. May as well minimise the
>> attack area on your website by not installing anything, given that
>> almost every single blog system there is is released with various
>> exploits each time an update comes out.
>>
>> Tubmlr is really configurable, so it's perfect, + other people can
>> follow it (if they are so inclined).
>>
>> I don't know if what the world needs is more blogs though. Surely
>> there is some better alternative.
>>
>> --
>> silky
>>  http://www.mirios.com.au/
>>  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael M. Minutillo
> Indiscriminate Information Sponge
> Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com
>

Re: Issues with Interop within a Service

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM, David Boccabella
 wrote:
> Hi Silky
>
> 1. I am running the code as myself, and I do have admin permissions. It is
> running on Win 7 Ultimate.  I have other services that are also running in
> my name with no issues.

But have you opened word on that computer using your account, previously?


> 2. Code is yet to work. I can copy the code (sans writelog's) into a win
> form and it does work.

Hmm. I wonder if the service needs to be one of those mysterious
'interact with desktop' types. I doubt it. I'm just guessing.


> Dave

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

MICROBIAL? WALL-TO-WALL! Noncontributory kiwifruit? Pliable! Ridership
paw materialistically ...

RE: Issues with Interop within a Service

2010-02-11 Thread David Boccabella 
Hi Silky

1. I am running the code as myself, and I do have admin permissions. It is
running on Win 7 Ultimate.  I have other services that are also running in
my name with no issues.

2. Code is yet to work. I can copy the code (sans writelog's) into a win
form and it does work.

Dave



David J. Boccabella
Proprietor
Anubis Systems
Phone: 0433 808 525
Fax: 3200 0085
Email:  davidboccabe...@anubis-systems.com

This e-mail and it's contents is confidential to Anubis Systems.
This e-mail, any attachments, or any part of can not be reproduced
without the express written permission of Anubis Systems


-Original Message-
From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com
[mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of silky
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2010 2:24 PM
To: ausDotNet
Subject: Re: Issues with Interop within a Service

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:20 PM, David Boccabella
 wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> Sorry – I realised I had posted one of the older pieces of code that I was
> trying to track issues with
>
> I am tearing my hair our with this piece of code. I need to use Word
within
> a service to convert MHT docs to PDF’s. I can make this work if I use the
> code within a form however not within a service.

Has the code ever worked?

Also, what account are you launching word with? Log on to the actual
machine with that account (if possible) and see if word brings up that
"Please enter your initials" dialog.

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

tourmaline CURRENCY LIBERATED RARING affecting MUFFLER MENSERVANTS
hussar: JUICED oar.

Re: [OT] Blogging

2010-02-11 Thread Michael Minutillo 
For convenience of entering special text (a la source code) I highly
recommend Windows Live Writer if you are going to start blogging. It is one
of the better apps that MS produces and there are a few plug-ins for it that
will format code nicely for you.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, silky  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
> > Folks, it’s about time I created a “formal” development blog like
> everyone
> > else, in one of the familiar formats. What choices are there? I have an
> > existing web site, so ideally I’d like to just create a virtual folder at
> > the point I choose and let it live there. Q...
>
> FWIW If I were to create a blog, I'd run it from a tumblr.com account,
> and then just link it from my normal website. May as well minimise the
> attack area on your website by not installing anything, given that
> almost every single blog system there is is released with various
> exploits each time an update comes out.
>
> Tubmlr is really configurable, so it's perfect, + other people can
> follow it (if they are so inclined).
>
> I don't know if what the world needs is more blogs though. Surely
> there is some better alternative.
>
> --
> silky
>  http://www.mirios.com.au/
>  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20
>



-- 
Michael M. Minutillo
Indiscriminate Information Sponge
Blog: http://wolfbyte-net.blogspot.com

Re: Issues with Interop within a Service

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:20 PM, David Boccabella
 wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> Sorry – I realised I had posted one of the older pieces of code that I was
> trying to track issues with
>
> I am tearing my hair our with this piece of code. I need to use Word within
> a service to convert MHT docs to PDF’s. I can make this work if I use the
> code within a form however not within a service.

Has the code ever worked?

Also, what account are you launching word with? Log on to the actual
machine with that account (if possible) and see if word brings up that
"Please enter your initials" dialog.

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

tourmaline CURRENCY LIBERATED RARING affecting MUFFLER MENSERVANTS
hussar: JUICED oar.

Issues with Interop within a Service

2010-02-11 Thread David Boccabella 
Hi Folks

Sorry - I realised I had posted one of the older pieces of code that I was
trying to track issues with

 

I am tearing my hair our with this piece of code. I need to use Word within
a service to convert MHT docs to PDF's. I can make this work if I use the
code within a form however not within a service.

 

Here is the code

Now - everything seems to work well until I try and reference objDoc after
opening a document. It returns Object reference not set to an instance of an
object. Whenever I try and see the properties etc.

 

 

I desperately need a solution.  All suggestsion re not using Word in
service, use other product etc cheerfully ignored. I Need to use Word!!!

 


---

Private Shared Function ProcessWord(ByVal sFilename As Object, ByVal
sFilePDF As Object, ByVal iFormat As Integer) As Integer

 

 

  

Dim sError As String

Dim missing As Object = System.Reflection.Missing.Value

 

For Each proc As Process In Process.GetProcessesByName("WINWORD")

proc.Kill()

Next proc

 

sFilename = "c:\temp\siam2.doc"

sFilePDF = "c:\temp\1.pdf"

iFormat = 17

 

 

If sFilename.Length > 0 And sFilePDF.Length > 0 Then

If File.Exists(sFilename) Then

Dim objApp As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Application

Dim objDoc As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Document

Try

 

objApp.Visible = False

objApp.ScreenUpdating = False

objApp.DisplayAlerts = WdAlertLevel.wdAlertsNone

WriteLogEvent("One", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

objDoc = objApp.Documents.Open(sFilename, missing,
missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing,
missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing)

 

objDoc.Activate()

ERROR HERE!!

 

Dim a1 As String = objDoc.Name

 

WriteLogEvent(a1, 1001, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

 

WriteLogEvent("two", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

 

objDoc.SaveAs(FileName:=sFilePDF,
FileFormat:=WdSaveFormat.wdFormatPDF)

WriteLogEvent("three", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

objDoc.Close(WdSaveOptions.wdDoNotSaveChanges)

 

WriteLogEvent("four...", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

ProcessWord = 3

WriteLogEvent("five..", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

 

objApp.Quit()

WriteLogEvent("six..", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

 

Catch ex As Exception

sError = "ProcessWord Abort:" & sFilename & ":-" &
ex.Message.ToString

WriteLogEvent(sError, 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

ProcessWord = 4

End Try

objDoc = Nothing

objApp = Nothing

Else

ProcessWord = 2

End If

Else

sError = "ProcessWord Error:" & sFilename & ":- Not Exist"

WriteLogEvent(sError, 1005, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

ProcessWord = 1

End If

 

 

 

 

End Function

 

 

 

End Function

 

 

-

Issues with Interop within a Service

2010-02-11 Thread David Boccabella 
Hi Folks

I am tearing my hair our with this piece of code. I need to use Word within
a service to convert MHT docs to PDF's. I can make this work if I use the
code within a form however not within a service.

 

Here is the code

Now - everything seems to work well until I try and reference objDoc after
opening a document. It returns Object reference not set to an instance of an
object. Whenever I try and see the properties etc.

 

 

I desperately need a solution.  All suggestsion re not using Word in
service, use other product etc cheerfully ignored. I Need to use Word!!!

 


---

Private Shared Function ProcessWord(ByVal sFilename As Object, ByVal
sFilePDF As Object, ByVal iFormat As Integer) As Integer

 

 

Dim sError As String

Dim missing As Object = System.Reflection.Missing.Value

 

For Each proc As Process In Process.GetProcessesByName("WINWORD")

proc.Kill()

Next proc

 

sFilename = "c:\temp\siam2.doc"

sFilePDF = "c:\temp\1.pdf"

iFormat = 17

 

 

If sFilename.Length > 0 And sFilePDF.Length > 0 Then

If File.Exists(sFilename) Then

Dim objApp As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Application

'   Dim objDoc As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Document

Try

 

objApp.Visible = False

objApp.ScreenUpdating = False

objApp.DisplayAlerts = WdAlertLevel.wdAlertsNone

WriteLogEvent("One", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

Dim objDoc As New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Document
= objApp.Documents.Open(sFilename, missing, missing, missing, missing,
missing, missing, missing, missing,  missing, missing, missing, missing,
missing, missing, missing)

 



objDoc Returns a   Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

 

 

Dim a1 As String = objDoc.Name

 

WriteLogEvent(a1, 1001, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

 

WriteLogEvent("two", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

 

objDoc.SaveAs(FileName:=sFilePDF,
FileFormat:=WdSaveFormat.wdFormatPDF)

WriteLogEvent("three", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

objDoc.Close(WdSaveOptions.wdDoNotSaveChanges)

 

WriteLogEvent("four...", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

ProcessWord = 3

WriteLogEvent("five..", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

 

objApp.Quit()

WriteLogEvent("six..", 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error,
"")

 

Catch ex As Exception

sError = "ProcessWord Abort:" & sFilename & ":-" &
ex.Message.ToString

WriteLogEvent(sError, 1006, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

ProcessWord = 4

End Try

objDoc = Nothing

objApp = Nothing

Else

ProcessWord = 2

End If

Else

sError = "ProcessWord Error:" & sFilename & ":- Not Exist"

WriteLogEvent(sError, 1005, EventLogEntryType.Error, "")

ProcessWord = 1

End If

 

 

 

 

End Function

 

 

-

Re: [OT] Blogging

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
> Folks, it’s about time I created a “formal” development blog like everyone
> else, in one of the familiar formats. What choices are there? I have an
> existing web site, so ideally I’d like to just create a virtual folder at
> the point I choose and let it live there. Q...

FWIW If I were to create a blog, I'd run it from a tumblr.com account,
and then just link it from my normal website. May as well minimise the
attack area on your website by not installing anything, given that
almost every single blog system there is is released with various
exploits each time an update comes out.

Tubmlr is really configurable, so it's perfect, + other people can
follow it (if they are so inclined).

I don't know if what the world needs is more blogs though. Surely
there is some better alternative.

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

[OT] Blogging

2010-02-11 Thread Greg Keogh 
Folks, it's about time I created a "formal" development blog like everyone
else, in one of the familiar formats. What choices are there? I have an
existing web site, so ideally I'd like to just create a virtual folder at
the point I choose and let it live there. Q...

 

. Do I get the blogging app as an ASP.NET project, compile and
install it myself?

. Do I create an account facebook style under some foreign blogging
parent site and then link to it from my site?

. What about the convenience of entry and the formatting of special
text (source code for example)?

. How skinnable/flexible are these things?

 

Although I imagine my blog will be rather boring, just hundreds of pages of
expletives complaining about how "everything doesn't work" and how to find
workarounds for everything.

 

Greg

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Jonathan Parker 
Transcripts take a while so you could check back in a week or two.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:44 PM, mike smith  wrote:

> Is there a text transcript?  podcasts are far slower to absorb.  God help
> me if I meet someone that can only accept info at that slow "open wide, here
> comes the next spoon" baby rate.
>
>
> On 12 February 2010 11:14, Aaron Bull  wrote:
>
>> Dotnetrocks has a pretty low real content density compared to other
>> podcasts, which is a shame. They do excel at audio quality, I wish there
>> were more podcasts with this level of quality.
>>
>> There are good podcasts out there though. I also listen to podcasts at
>> double speed which improves the content signal to noise ratio.
>>
>>
>> --
> Meski
>
> "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: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread mike smith 
Is there a text transcript?  podcasts are far slower to absorb.  God help me
if I meet someone that can only accept info at that slow "open wide, here
comes the next spoon" baby rate.

On 12 February 2010 11:14, Aaron Bull  wrote:

> Dotnetrocks has a pretty low real content density compared to other
> podcasts, which is a shame. They do excel at audio quality, I wish there
> were more podcasts with this level of quality.
>
> There are good podcasts out there though. I also listen to podcasts at
> double speed which improves the content signal to noise ratio.
>
>
> --
Meski

"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: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Jonathan Parker
 wrote:
> Ahem it's a podcast not a video. I listen to podcasts while doing
> other boring yet necessary things such as driving or exercise.

Oh.

Man.

I may as well give up now. I'm an old man not even familiar with
technology terms anymore. That's disturbing.

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

GINGHAM AERODYNAMICALLY likewise: neutralize graphology. Pivotal TRIG: endow...

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Jonathan Parker 
Ahem it's a podcast not a video. I listen to podcasts while doing
other boring yet necessary things such as driving or exercise.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, silky  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM, David Connors  wrote:
> > That podcast robbed me of thirty minutes of my life (I couldn't handle
> the
> > entire 60 minutes) and reaffirmed my belief in podcasts.
>
> I haven't watched it yet, but I tend to agree, I've can't think of one
> good thing that I've seen on the internet about programming that has
> been in the form of a video (well, with the obvious exception of dashy
> videos).
>
> Your analysis suggests that there is not much point reviewing this
> point of view for this particular video.
>
>
> > --
> > David Connors (da...@codify.com)
> > Software Engineer
> > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417
> > 189 363
> > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
> > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
>
> --
> silky
>  http://www.mirios.com.au/
>  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20
>
> deflective oaf! Remote, trendily uncomplicated beneficence:
> fortunetelling completion profit.
>

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM, David Connors  wrote:
> That podcast robbed me of thirty minutes of my life (I couldn't handle the
> entire 60 minutes) and reaffirmed my belief in podcasts.

I haven't watched it yet, but I tend to agree, I've can't think of one
good thing that I've seen on the internet about programming that has
been in the form of a video (well, with the obvious exception of dashy
videos).

Your analysis suggests that there is not much point reviewing this
point of view for this particular video.


> --
> David Connors (da...@codify.com)
> Software Engineer
> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417
> 189 363
> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

deflective oaf! Remote, trendily uncomplicated beneficence:
fortunetelling completion profit.

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Mark Hurd 
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:49 PM, silky  wrote:
> I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# is (possibly)
> going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice that it is tending
> to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less compile-time
> checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with features that you
> could argue are "generally" harmful, and only "sometimes" useful
> (Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous classes being
> another).
>
> I just wonder if anyone else is legitimately concerned by this? Or is
> mostly the feeling that it's about time the language got some "cool"
> features and damn the people that use them irresponsibly!
>
> Not all the features are bad, to be sure, and mostly I'm just
> interested in thoughts (I have no real strong feelings on the matter,
> despite how it may seem); but it seems to me that we should go down
> the Spec# world of further restrictions to prevent various things even
> *becoming* code.
>
> Is the general "thing" that programmers care about now flexibility, as
> opposed to correctness? Or is it both? Are they exclusive? I don't
> think so. Anyway, this is probably too much off topic rambling to even
> warrant and OT tag; I just can't help but wonder if anyone else is
> legitimately concerned that it will lead to less maintainable systems
> in general. It seems (to me, just an outsider) that not much thought
> is given, specifically, to how the features could be used badly; only
> to how they could be used ideally (and we all know that few, if any,
> programmers are consistently programming "ideally").
>
> Probably I should do a significant amount of work in 4.0 before
> commenting further.
>
> --
> silky

Note that with the "unification" of VB.NET and C#, unless it /is/ the
beginning of the end of VB.NET, you're going to get more "interesting"
features in C# if VB.NET is still to be targeted at it's current
market.

-- 
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.)(Hons.)

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Jonathan Parker 
You should have listened to all of it. I found it very interesting
especially his comparison of different platforms: C, C++, COM, .NET

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Aaron Bull  wrote:

> Dotnetrocks has a pretty low real content density compared to other
> podcasts, which is a shame. They do excel at audio quality, I wish there
> were more podcasts with this level of quality.
>
> There are good podcasts out there though. I also listen to podcasts at
> double speed which improves the content signal to noise ratio.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com on behalf of David Connors
> Sent: Fri 12/02/2010 11:13 AM
> To: ausDotNet
> Subject: Re: OT - wondering; c# direction
>
>
> That podcast robbed me of thirty minutes of my life (I couldn't handle the
> entire 60 minutes) and reaffirmed my belief in podcasts. I thought I might
> be in trouble when the cheesy music started with a voice over
> "An nooww... the man who went to the drug store to get his
> wife a box of eye pads  crrr franklin". I'm sure that
> was amusing/made sense to someone.
>
> On 12 February 2010 08:42, Jonathan Parker 
> wrote:
>
>
>Maybe it's time for an entire overhaul of .NET and the CLR?
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>This is a very interesting podcast where Juval Lowy tries to explain
> why every class (including .NET classes)
>
>"should" be WCF services.
> http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=520
>
>
> Just because you can, does not mean you should. The guy was on the show to
> peddle/plug his book on WCF so his conclusion was perhaps fairly
> unsurprising.
>
> His argument is based on a false dichotomy that developers spend all their
> time doing a) worthless plumbing or b) value added business logic that
> managers like. From that he said something along the lines of "WCF
> implements every conceivable piece of plumbing". Also, apparently,
> developers are not experts in synchronisation and other basic fundamentals
> of computing science (NFI why I went to unit for three years then).
>
> Sorry to sound so harsh but this guy just sounds like yet another blogger
> dude with a barrow to push promising a silver bullet for all our woes. Maybe
> he can team up with the dynamic language crowd and merge WCF with ruby,
> javascript and rails and then we can all write expressive code while singing
> kumbaya and never have to write anything except value added business logic.
>
> I am getting so tired of people offering silver bullets for all our woes by
> some idiot with a blog doing crazy man hand waiving that "YOU'RE DOING IT
> ALL WRONG" and we need to throw out everything and go back to re-education
> camp to learn the new thing that is going to fix everything.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> David.
>
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM, David Connors 
> wrote:
>
>
>On 11 February 2010 18:19, silky 
> wrote:
>
>
>I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that
> C# is (possibly)
>going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice
> that it is tending
>to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with
> less compile-time
>checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with
> features that you
>could argue are "generally" harmful, and only
> "sometimes" useful
>(Extension Methods being the primary example,
> anonymous classes being
>another).
>
>
>
>I've not looked closely enough at the dynamic features in C#
> 4 to comment, but .NET has strong fundamentals and I appreciate Nick
> Wienholt's comments re Hejlsberg. He has produced environments with
> incredible pedigree in both his Borland and Microsoft days - I think he is a
> genius and a true asset to MS more so than most other people who are held up
> as MS 'rockstars'. I just hope MS are not spooked into doing something
> completely insane with .NET on the basis of the apparent popularity of
> dynamic languages in the freetard community.
>
>From following the dynamic crowd for the past year and a
> half or so, I have concluded that it is a religious movement; at least that
> is the only reason I can figure out why anyone would endure a Steve Yegge
> talk or blog post. The same people probably believe Erlang propaganda.
>  Their bossman needs to give them more work to do so they can stop trying to
> figure out how to invent 1995.
>
>--
>David Connors (da...@codify.com)
>Software Engineer
> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com 
> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 |
> Mobile: +61 417 189 363
>V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
>Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Conno

RE: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Aaron Bull 
Dotnetrocks has a pretty low real content density compared to other podcasts, 
which is a shame. They do excel at audio quality, I wish there were more 
podcasts with this level of quality. 
 
There are good podcasts out there though. I also listen to podcasts at double 
speed which improves the content signal to noise ratio.
 
 
 
 
 
 



From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com on behalf of David Connors
Sent: Fri 12/02/2010 11:13 AM
To: ausDotNet
Subject: Re: OT - wondering; c# direction


That podcast robbed me of thirty minutes of my life (I couldn't handle the 
entire 60 minutes) and reaffirmed my belief in podcasts. I thought I might be 
in trouble when the cheesy music started with a voice over "An 
nooww... the man who went to the drug store to get his wife a box of eye pads 
 crrr franklin". I'm sure that was amusing/made sense to 
someone.

On 12 February 2010 08:42, Jonathan Parker  
wrote:


Maybe it's time for an entire overhaul of .NET and the CLR? 


Why? 
 

This is a very interesting podcast where Juval Lowy tries to explain 
why every class (including .NET classes)

"should" be WCF services. 
http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=520


Just because you can, does not mean you should. The guy was on the show to 
peddle/plug his book on WCF so his conclusion was perhaps fairly unsurprising.

His argument is based on a false dichotomy that developers spend all their time 
doing a) worthless plumbing or b) value added business logic that managers 
like. From that he said something along the lines of "WCF implements every 
conceivable piece of plumbing". Also, apparently, developers are not experts in 
synchronisation and other basic fundamentals of computing science (NFI why I 
went to unit for three years then). 

Sorry to sound so harsh but this guy just sounds like yet another blogger dude 
with a barrow to push promising a silver bullet for all our woes. Maybe he can 
team up with the dynamic language crowd and merge WCF with ruby, javascript and 
rails and then we can all write expressive code while singing kumbaya and never 
have to write anything except value added business logic. 

I am getting so tired of people offering silver bullets for all our woes by 
some idiot with a blog doing crazy man hand waiving that "YOU'RE DOING IT ALL 
WRONG" and we need to throw out everything and go back to re-education camp to 
learn the new thing that is going to fix everything. 

[ ... ]

David. 
 


On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM, David Connors  
wrote:


On 11 February 2010 18:19, silky  
wrote:


I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# 
is (possibly)
going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice 
that it is tending
to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less 
compile-time
checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with 
features that you
could argue are "generally" harmful, and only 
"sometimes" useful
(Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous 
classes being
another).



I've not looked closely enough at the dynamic features in C# 4 
to comment, but .NET has strong fundamentals and I appreciate Nick Wienholt's 
comments re Hejlsberg. He has produced environments with incredible pedigree in 
both his Borland and Microsoft days - I think he is a genius and a true asset 
to MS more so than most other people who are held up as MS 'rockstars'. I just 
hope MS are not spooked into doing something completely insane with .NET on the 
basis of the apparent popularity of dynamic languages in the freetard 
community.  

From following the dynamic crowd for the past year and a half 
or so, I have concluded that it is a religious movement; at least that is the 
only reason I can figure out why anyone would endure a Steve Yegge talk or blog 
post. The same people probably believe Erlang propaganda.  Their bossman needs 
to give them more work to do so they can stop trying to figure out how to 
invent 1995.  

-- 
David Connors (da...@codify.com)
Software Engineer
Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com  
Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | 
Mobile: +61 417 189 363
V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact







-- 
David Connors (da...@codify.com)
Software Engineer
Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com  
Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 
363
V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Address

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread David Connors 
That podcast robbed me of thirty minutes of my life (I couldn't handle the
entire 60 minutes) and reaffirmed my belief in podcasts. I thought I might
be in trouble when the cheesy music started with a voice over
"An nooww... the man who went to the drug store to get his
wife a box of eye pads  crrr franklin". I'm sure that
was amusing/made sense to someone.

On 12 February 2010 08:42, Jonathan Parker wrote:

> Maybe it's time for an entire overhaul of .NET and the CLR?


Why?


> This is a very interesting podcast where Juval Lowy tries to explain why
> every class (including .NET classes)

"should" be WCF services.
> http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=520
>

Just because you can, does not mean you should. The guy was on the show to
peddle/plug his book on WCF so his conclusion was perhaps fairly
unsurprising.

His argument is based on a false dichotomy that developers spend all their
time doing a) worthless plumbing or b) value added business logic that
managers like. From that he said something along the lines of "WCF
implements every conceivable piece of plumbing". Also, apparently,
developers are not experts in synchronisation and other basic fundamentals
of computing science (NFI why I went to unit for three years then).

Sorry to sound so harsh but this guy just sounds like yet another blogger
dude with a barrow to push promising a silver bullet for all our woes. Maybe
he can team up with the dynamic language crowd and merge WCF with ruby,
javascript and rails and then we can all write expressive code while singing
kumbaya and never have to write anything except value added business logic.

I am getting so tired of people offering silver bullets for all our woes by
some idiot with a blog doing crazy man hand waiving that "YOU'RE DOING IT
ALL WRONG" and we need to throw out everything and go back to re-education
camp to learn the new thing that is going to fix everything.

[ ... ]

David.


>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM, David Connors  wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2010 18:19, silky  wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# is (possibly)
>>> going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice that it is tending
>>> to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less compile-time
>>> checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with features that you
>>> could argue are "generally" harmful, and only "sometimes" useful
>>> (Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous classes being
>>> another).
>>>
>>
>> I've not looked closely enough at the dynamic features in C# 4 to comment,
>> but .NET has strong fundamentals and I appreciate Nick Wienholt's comments
>> re Hejlsberg. He has produced environments with incredible pedigree in both
>> his Borland and Microsoft days - I think he is a genius and a true asset to
>> MS more so than most other people who are held up as MS 'rockstars'. I just
>> hope MS are not spooked into doing something completely insane with .NET on
>> the basis of the apparent popularity of dynamic languages in the freetard
>> community.
>>
>> From following the dynamic crowd for the past year and a half or so, I
>> have concluded that it is a religious movement; at least that is the only
>> reason I can figure out why anyone would endure a Steve Yegge talk or blog
>> post. The same people probably believe Erlang propaganda.  Their bossman
>> needs to give them more work to do so they can stop trying to figure out how
>> to invent 1995.
>>
>> --
>> David Connors (da...@codify.com)
>> Software Engineer
>> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
>> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417
>> 189 363
>> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
>> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
>>
>>
>


-- 
David Connors (da...@codify.com)
Software Engineer
Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417
189 363
V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact

[OT] Video cataloger/bookmarker

2010-02-11 Thread Anthony 
Found heaps of video cataloguers but i cannot find one that will allow me to
bookmark video to a specific segment.  I have some videos which have some
interesting parts i want bookmark  instead of having to watch the whole
video or fast forward to the part i want..surely this is a common
requirement?

 

  Is your website being
IntelliXperienced?
regards
Anthony (*12QWERNB*)

Is your website being IntelliXperienced?

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Jonathan Parker 
Maybe it's time for an entire overhaul of .NET and the CLR?

This is a very interesting podcast where Juval Lowy tries to explain why
every class (including .NET classes)
"should" be WCF services.

http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=520

I haven't looked at it but apparently Juval has a utility that will allow
you to define a POCO class which it will convert into a WCF service
thus removing the need to have settings in the config file for each class.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:58 AM, David Connors  wrote:

> On 11 February 2010 18:19, silky  wrote:
>
>> I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# is (possibly)
>> going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice that it is tending
>> to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less compile-time
>> checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with features that you
>> could argue are "generally" harmful, and only "sometimes" useful
>> (Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous classes being
>> another).
>>
>
> I've not looked closely enough at the dynamic features in C# 4 to comment,
> but .NET has strong fundamentals and I appreciate Nick Wienholt's comments
> re Hejlsberg. He has produced environments with incredible pedigree in both
> his Borland and Microsoft days - I think he is a genius and a true asset to
> MS more so than most other people who are held up as MS 'rockstars'. I just
> hope MS are not spooked into doing something completely insane with .NET on
> the basis of the apparent popularity of dynamic languages in the freetard
> community.
>
> From following the dynamic crowd for the past year and a half or so, I have
> concluded that it is a religious movement; at least that is the only reason
> I can figure out why anyone would endure a Steve Yegge talk or blog post.
> The same people probably believe Erlang propaganda.  Their bossman needs to
> give them more work to do so they can stop trying to figure out how to
> invent 1995.
>
> --
> David Connors (da...@codify.com)
> Software Engineer
> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417
> 189 363
> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
>
>

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread David Connors 
On 11 February 2010 18:19, silky  wrote:

> I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# is (possibly)
> going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice that it is tending
> to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less compile-time
> checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with features that you
> could argue are "generally" harmful, and only "sometimes" useful
> (Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous classes being
> another).
>

I've not looked closely enough at the dynamic features in C# 4 to comment,
but .NET has strong fundamentals and I appreciate Nick Wienholt's comments
re Hejlsberg. He has produced environments with incredible pedigree in both
his Borland and Microsoft days - I think he is a genius and a true asset to
MS more so than most other people who are held up as MS 'rockstars'. I just
hope MS are not spooked into doing something completely insane with .NET on
the basis of the apparent popularity of dynamic languages in the freetard
community.

>From following the dynamic crowd for the past year and a half or so, I have
concluded that it is a religious movement; at least that is the only reason
I can figure out why anyone would endure a Steve Yegge talk or blog post.
The same people probably believe Erlang propaganda.  Their bossman needs to
give them more work to do so they can stop trying to figure out how to
invent 1995.

-- 
David Connors (da...@codify.com)
Software Engineer
Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417
189 363
V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Nick Wienholt
 wrote:
> > AFAIT, there is *plenty* you can do at a language level to help people
> > not use it stupidly
>
> In my experience, developers who love to wonder into dark areas of
> technology for their own gratification will do so regardless of the language
> constraints.
>
> But I don't want to hijack the thread with the OT on an OT, so I leave it
> there :).

Fair enough; we'll just disagree on that one.


> I agree that the new language features have the capacity for harm

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

materiel remover protectiveness, gunfight! Dentition, FRIGIDNESS PUPAL
lion incorrectly knick...

RE: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Nick Wienholt 
> And whether or not the HR department takes appropriate action in time
> to prevent a maintenance headache is surely a reasonable question.

Yep - its hard to give a formal warning to some dev because they added one
too many layers of indirection :)

> AFAIT, there is *plenty* you can do at a language level to help people
> not use it stupidly

In my experience, developers who love to wonder into dark areas of
technology for their own gratification will do so regardless of the language
constraints.

But I don't want to hijack the thread with the OT on an OT, so I leave it
there :).

I agree that the new language features have the capacity for harm


-Original Message-
From: silky [mailto:michaelsli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010 8:16 PM
To: Nick Wienholt
Cc: ausDotNet
Subject: Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Nick Wienholt
 wrote:
> > it's about time the language got some "cool"
> > features and damn the people that use them irresponsibly!
>
> The new dynamic features target very specific scenarios like COM interop -
> Ander's is way too level-headed and experienced to be influenced by
> coolness.
>
> I do agree that the new features do have potential to do harm - the
> "let-add-a-design-pattern-here-because-it-make-me-look-smart" developer
will
> definitely abuse the new features.  There ain't much you can do at a
> language level to solve that - it's ultimately a HR issue for a
development
> shop with these people.

I suppose I'm just a bit surprised that it's gone this way, given that
Java's approach to language features (and even C#'s suggested
classical approach of "-100 for each feature") would seem to imply
that there needs to be a significant reason for each thing. And
certainly, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, it's fairly easy to
see the reasoning behind each addition, but I don't think even the
-100 accounts for "will the possible misuse of this outweigh the
benefit".

And whether or not the HR department takes appropriate action in time
to prevent a maintenance headache is surely a reasonable question.

AFAIT, there is *plenty* you can do at a language level to help people
not use it stupidly (this is what compilation is; and other steps such
as this can also help in this area).

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

empowerment! Third-class PEATY cerebral. Pimp wean slipperiness.

Re: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Nick Wienholt
 wrote:
> > it's about time the language got some "cool"
> > features and damn the people that use them irresponsibly!
>
> The new dynamic features target very specific scenarios like COM interop -
> Ander's is way too level-headed and experienced to be influenced by
> coolness.
>
> I do agree that the new features do have potential to do harm - the
> "let-add-a-design-pattern-here-because-it-make-me-look-smart" developer will
> definitely abuse the new features.  There ain't much you can do at a
> language level to solve that - it's ultimately a HR issue for a development
> shop with these people.

I suppose I'm just a bit surprised that it's gone this way, given that
Java's approach to language features (and even C#'s suggested
classical approach of "-100 for each feature") would seem to imply
that there needs to be a significant reason for each thing. And
certainly, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, it's fairly easy to
see the reasoning behind each addition, but I don't think even the
-100 accounts for "will the possible misuse of this outweigh the
benefit".

And whether or not the HR department takes appropriate action in time
to prevent a maintenance headache is surely a reasonable question.

AFAIT, there is *plenty* you can do at a language level to help people
not use it stupidly (this is what compilation is; and other steps such
as this can also help in this area).

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

empowerment! Third-class PEATY cerebral. Pimp wean slipperiness.

RE: OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread Nick Wienholt 
> it's about time the language got some "cool"
> features and damn the people that use them irresponsibly!

The new dynamic features target very specific scenarios like COM interop -
Ander's is way too level-headed and experienced to be influenced by
coolness.

I do agree that the new features do have potential to do harm - the
"let-add-a-design-pattern-here-because-it-make-me-look-smart" developer will
definitely abuse the new features.  There ain't much you can do at a
language level to solve that - it's ultimately a HR issue for a development
shop with these people.

-Original Message-
From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com
[mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of silky
Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010 7:20 PM
To: ausdotnet@lists.codify.com
Subject: OT - wondering; c# direction

I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# is (possibly)
going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice that it is tending
to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less compile-time
checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with features that you
could argue are "generally" harmful, and only "sometimes" useful
(Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous classes being
another).

I just wonder if anyone else is legitimately concerned by this? Or is
mostly the feeling that it's about time the language got some "cool"
features and damn the people that use them irresponsibly!

Not all the features are bad, to be sure, and mostly I'm just
interested in thoughts (I have no real strong feelings on the matter,
despite how it may seem); but it seems to me that we should go down
the Spec# world of further restrictions to prevent various things even
*becoming* code.

Is the general "thing" that programmers care about now flexibility, as
opposed to correctness? Or is it both? Are they exclusive? I don't
think so. Anyway, this is probably too much off topic rambling to even
warrant and OT tag; I just can't help but wonder if anyone else is
legitimately concerned that it will lead to less maintainable systems
in general. It seems (to me, just an outsider) that not much thought
is given, specifically, to how the features could be used badly; only
to how they could be used ideally (and we all know that few, if any,
programmers are consistently programming "ideally").

Probably I should do a significant amount of work in 4.0 before
commenting further.

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20

OT - wondering; c# direction

2010-02-11 Thread silky 
I wonder if I am alone, out here, in thinking that C# is (possibly)
going in a strange and bad direction. We can notice that it is tending
to more of a dynamic/scripting-like language, with less compile-time
checks (or worded another way, more freedom) with features that you
could argue are "generally" harmful, and only "sometimes" useful
(Extension Methods being the primary example, anonymous classes being
another).

I just wonder if anyone else is legitimately concerned by this? Or is
mostly the feeling that it's about time the language got some "cool"
features and damn the people that use them irresponsibly!

Not all the features are bad, to be sure, and mostly I'm just
interested in thoughts (I have no real strong feelings on the matter,
despite how it may seem); but it seems to me that we should go down
the Spec# world of further restrictions to prevent various things even
*becoming* code.

Is the general "thing" that programmers care about now flexibility, as
opposed to correctness? Or is it both? Are they exclusive? I don't
think so. Anyway, this is probably too much off topic rambling to even
warrant and OT tag; I just can't help but wonder if anyone else is
legitimately concerned that it will lead to less maintainable systems
in general. It seems (to me, just an outsider) that not much thought
is given, specifically, to how the features could be used badly; only
to how they could be used ideally (and we all know that few, if any,
programmers are consistently programming "ideally").

Probably I should do a significant amount of work in 4.0 before
commenting further.

-- 
silky
  http://www.mirios.com.au/
  http://island.mirios.com.au/t/rigby+random+20