.NET (Core and Framework)

Richard MacCutchan6-Feb-10 21:44

Richard MacCutchan

6-Feb-10 21:44

Visual Studio 2008 and .NET 3.5 are the latest versions, with 2010 and .NET 4.0 hot on their heels. You should be looking to those versions in order to get up to date with current technology.

MVP 2010 - are they mad?

volatil3_6-Feb-10 22:39

volatil3_

6-Feb-10 22:39

What about backward compatibility? How many people would be using new framework on XP machines?

Richard MacCutchan7-Feb-10 1:04

Richard MacCutchan

7-Feb-10 1:04

volatil3_ wrote:
How many people would be using new framework on XP machines?

I have no idea.

MVP 2010 - are they mad?

Abhinav S6-Feb-10 22:19

Abhinav S

6-Feb-10 22:19

Where have you been?
Smile | :)

Use .Net 3.5 with VS 2008.
If you are looking at a long term project then 4.0 beta might also be an option.

Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...

modified on Sunday, February 7, 2010 4:41 AM

Luc Pattyn7-Feb-10 2:22

7-Feb-10 2:22

Don't consider 1.0/1.1, the functionality is limited and the bugs are plentiful.
Use at least 2.0

All Visual Studio versions since VS2003 can target 2.0
The current version is 3.5, supported by VS2008, which also targets 2.0 and 3.0
so there is no reason to use any older Studio version.
Finally 4.0 (and VS2010) are almost there, but the quality of VS2010 may still be unclear.

All versions of .NET can coexist on a machine, XP or other.
A machine with only 1.0/1.1 on it would be a curiosity, that can easily be updated to have at least also 2.0

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that.
[The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]

Luc Pattyn7-Feb-10 8:55

7-Feb-10 8:55

I just finished a little article[^] on the subject.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that.
[The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]

Roger Wright9-Feb-10 19:11

Roger Wright

9-Feb-10 19:11

Nice article, Luc. Big Grin | :-D

But it would be nice to have a list of Windows versions with the version of .Net supported natively. Although we can redistribute the runtime with applications to update the user's OS, it might be desirable to avoid that step by simply targeting an app to a specific version. IIRC, WinXP originally supported .Net 2.0, but SP3 added .Net 3.0. For my purposes, I'd select 3.0 for development, on the assumption that most of my users (people at work) have SP3 installed, and won't want to install 3.5.

"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"

Luc Pattyn10-Feb-10 1:10

10-Feb-10 1:10

Hi Roger,

I understand it would be nice to add an (OS, .NET) table somehow, however I don't think I can do that, as I don't have such information; and I think the set of pre-installed .NET versions depends on many things, not just the OS version and the service pack level, but also what computer vendors decide to add.

Cheers.

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that.
All Toronto weekends should be extremely wet until we get it automated in regular forums, not just QA.

Roger Wright10-Feb-10 2:13

Roger Wright

10-Feb-10 2:13

Actually, I recall seeing this very table posted at MSDN or Technet, but what are the odds of ever finding it again? Big Grin | :-D

I really should learn to use bookmarks. D'Oh! | :doh:

"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"

Luc Pattyn10-Feb-10 2:53

Ideas on how to design a file listener

10-Feb-10 2:53

I'll be happy to include a link to it, so I'll await your find.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

rune7116-Feb-10 7:19

rune711

6-Feb-10 7:19

I'm working on a project that uses the System.IO.FileSystemWatcher to monitor a folder. What I'm wanting to do is copy select types of files from the monitored folder when they are created. This works pretty slick, but the problem I run into is that the FileSystemWatcher event oftentimes fires before the file finishes copying, so copying the file results in an error.

I resolved this by creating a timer that's started on the FileSystemWatcher.created event. It waits a reasonable amount of time and then copies the file. No issues.

My problem is that this isn't a very good solution, particularly when hundreds or thousands of files are being copied onto the watched drive, as this can result in thousands of threads.

I wanted to resolve this by having the FileSystemWatcher.created thread add the files to be copied to an arrayList, then have a separate single thread monitor the array... wait for the file to be available to be copied, then start copying files. However this has more problems since the arrayList collection is changed on a separate thread which introduces a lot of locking issues, which I'd rather avoid.

Can anyone offer an idea of what the best practice for this situation would be? I appreciate any input. Laugh | :laugh:

Thanks!

Dana

Re: Ideas on how to design a file listener

Luc Pattyn6-Feb-10 8:45

Re: Ideas on how to design a file listener

6-Feb-10 8:45

Hi,

1.
yes, FileSystemWatcher is rather good at signaling the start of an action, it does not offer a Done event, and the best I ever could find was a loop, trying and waiting some, till success.

2.
hundreds of threads doesn't make sense, they all take a lot of resources. Anyway having multiple threads each copying one or a few files will not help, as soon the disk bandwidth will be the bottleneck. So don't take the multithreading hassle.

3.
the FSW events occur asynchronously, so their handlers aren't running on your main thread, instead they use a ThreadPoolThread. If you copy the file right away, you would be too soon, and also hog the thread. So you will end up using at least two threads: one for the FSW event (probably filling a queue), and one for copying the files, maybe a BackgroundWorker.

4.
Hence my proposal is: use a queue to store the incoming file paths; use a BGW that reads all entries from the queue and copies the files. If the copy fails (it will initially unless the file is really small), let it enqueue the file path again. When all entries have been processed (ignoring the ones requeued), then wait say one second, and repeat. You do need a lock for those queue operations, both at the producer side (FSW event and requeueing) and at the consumer side (BGW dequeue); make sure to keep the lock short, don't do File.Copy within the lock!

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that.
[The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]

Pete O'Hanlon6-Feb-10 10:04

Pete O'Hanlon

6-Feb-10 10:04

Switch this round, and stop thinking of reacting and using the FileSystemWatcher - as it does have problems; which you've discovered now. So, if you can't copy the files like this, how can you do it? Well, a method I've had a lot of success with is to use Microsoft's Synchronisation Framework[^] which provides a file synchronisation provider, so you can transfer files based on periodical synchronisations of the folders.

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

Re: Ideas on how to design a file listener

Alexey Malyshev7-Feb-10 11:50

Alexey Malyshev

7-Feb-10 11:50

As it was said before FSW isn't perfect, e.g. it doesn't report about each new file. My work around was to scan the whole dir every time FSW.created raised.

Regarding other questions Luc Pattyn suggested a viable approach.

PS: once you are doing such stuff you should familiarize yourself with synchronization methods.

QSB like Interface

volatil3_5-Feb-10 8:45

volatil3_

5-Feb-10 8:45

Hi All

I want to make a Google's Quick Search Box(QSB) like Interface in C#. I want to know how this could be accomplished? The things I am unable to find out re:

1)Adding a button in taskbar
2)Customize UI for it

Kindly guide me.

Thanks

Sid Labs - Innovation for humanity

Problem Converting Hex to Decimal

VikashGohil5-Feb-10 3:15

VikashGohil

5-Feb-10 3:15

Hello, this is Vikash.

I am facing a problem related to Conversion of Hex String into Decimal Value.

The problem does not occur when the code is run in VB.net 2005.

But the same Code when run in VB6.0 gives a negative value.

This is the Code in VB.net :

dim C as string
C = CDec("&H" & "8CF1152C")

The Value of C in this case is "2364609836"

The same Code in VB6.0 gives C value as "-1930357460"

Could anyone tell me why this is happening or how to solve this problem?

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Thanks In Advance.

harold aptroot5-Feb-10 3:32

harold aptroot

5-Feb-10 3:32

Well 0x8CF1152C has the sign bit set (assuming 32bit signed int), and therefore it's negative (if you treat it as singed int), but I don't know anything about VB or CDec so I don't really know what's going on here

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr.5-Feb-10 4:28

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr.

5-Feb-10 4:28

In VB6 an Int is 16 bits and not 32 bits. This is the cause of many, many cross language problems involving VB6.

Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting.

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
--Stephen Crane

Eddy Vluggen5-Feb-10 4:32

Eddy Vluggen

5-Feb-10 4:32

Harold has the right answer, the conversion fails because one is signed, and the other isn't. You can do this conversion in VB6 using this code;

VB.NET

'Helperfunctions;
Private Const OFFSET_4 = 4294967296#

Function LongToUnsigned(Value As Long) As Double
    If Value < 0 Then
        LongToUnsigned = Value + OFFSET_4
    Else
        LongToUnsigned = Value
    End If
End Function

' Actual conversion;
Dim longNumber As Long
longNumber = &H8CF1152C
unsignedNumber = LongToUnsigned(longNumber)
    
MsgBox (CStr(unsignedNumber))

That should do the trick Smile | :)

I are Troll Suspicious | :suss: