|
Good day.
Managed to talk to oracle with .net via just one small oracle dll and no oracle client. Always hated how you had to pollute a client with oracle s**t just so I can talk to oracle. SQL Server just works and Oracle has always been a pain in the ....
Not anymore.. Yippee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oracle file. Oracle.manageddataaccess.dll. Add it as a reference and imports or using oracle.managedclient.data.client and also one for types (going by memory as Tuesday's done and home now). From there it similar to sql methods
|
|
|
|
|
Any noticeable difference in performance?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't done extensive testing but the seems a bit faster. Reality may be different. Not sure if there are any gotchas yet, but seems to work well and cleanly.
Going to do more testing. Only changed one behind the scenes app that works well on a sql box with no oracle client of any sort on it.
NB I believe it needs .net 4 or 4.5. Definitely not 3.5
|
|
|
|
|
Had a look at it a couple of years ago when it was still in beta, it was quite buggy then, maybe it's time for another look.
I'd love to be able to include a dll instead of having to install a client, having to take bitness and other weird oddities into consideration.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
We've used the client access part of odp in the past (6 dll ~180mb), but this one reduces it to one dll about 6mb. Seems to be designed specifically for .net. Certainly worth a look and I'd be interested to see how other people find it.
|
|
|
|
|
RossMW wrote: Seems to be designed specifically for .net
It is.
I'm just a late adopter. I want the bugs ironed out before I use it in production. But it seems to be time to check it out again.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
While checking out this article on my laptop: http://sdtimes.com/analyst-watch-smartphones-become-obsolete/[^]
I couldn't scroll the page with my mouse. There was no scrollbar and the mouse wheel wouldn't work. I dragged it over to my touch screen and was able to scroll. Apparently if the site detects touch support, it disables mouse support. 
|
|
|
|
|
I have a lot more problems with certain menu controls not working with touch then vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
It's working fine on my Ultrabook.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it must be a bug on the page or something.
On IE no scroll bars.
On Chrome, first page load the scroll bar briefly appeared, then vanished. Open a new tabe navigate and grabbed the scrollbar and it worked ok then. Opened new tab and navigate, and left it, the scroll bars remained and worked.
smells like a poor implementation regardless...
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAuld wrote: I think it must be a bug on the page or something.
I agree. My PC does not have touch capabilities, but the page was completely useless.
I opened the page in Chrome. Did not see any scrollbars. Arrow and Page Down keys did not do anything, neither did my mouse scroll wheel. Closed the page and decided to focus troubleshooting my own code rather than theirs.
I was amused by the popup window asking me "Like what you see?" and something about signing up. 
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I had a similar issue. I refreshed the page, still no change. However after a (long) while, a popup ad showed up. Once I dismissed that it worked fine.
BTW was using IE 11 on Win 8.1, if that matters...
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Brummer wrote: I couldn't scroll the page with my mouse. There was no scrollbar and the mouse wheel wouldn't work.
They are trying to make a point that you missed. Methinks your laptop is obsolete.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
For me, the launch speed and responsiveness of Visual Studio has declined over the years. I find VS 2013 to the worse of the bunch. I get a lot of disk thrash and the menus seem to have a small delay in popping up. When I have to use VS 2008 for a project, I'm blow away with how fast it starts and responds to the mouse. VS 2010 is slower, but still fairly responsive.
I was recently told I was crazy. Now that may be true in general, but the question is whether I'm just seeing things with VS 2013. So, what's everyone's observations?
(I know more than one place that has refused to switch to 2013 for various reasons, including performance. I switched only because of Qt support.)
EDIT: Some time ago, I installed the Azure SDK for a project that ended up never happening. I just uninstalled all the Azure components and the start and response times have noticeably improved!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a Vegas-style gambler, nor do I run any copies of VS 2013 on a 64-bit OS, but I'd wager that if you ARE running it on a 64-bit box, checking for the presence of an "*32" entrained to the devenv.exe in Task Manager, has something to do with the speed ...
Do not reply to this post. Please.
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: Do not reply to this post. Please.
You had to say that... 
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: Do not reply to this post. Please.
Okay. I won't. 
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: Do not reply to this post. Please.
Why, what will happen if I do?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for this game!
Pete, where's Nagy and Griff?
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Many operations are done in background in VS2013 so it load faster. But I thing it depends a lot on extension that you load as some might required that all projects are loaded effectively destroying improvement made by VS team.
Background loading effectively reduce startup time. For example, if you don't have any designer open, then VS2013 won't load them at that point. It will however take a bit more time the first time you open the designer.
Philippe Mori
|
|
|
|
|
I think 2008 was the last usable version.
At work I use 2012 (Ultimate) because I do a lot of SSIS.
But at home I have 2010 (Express) and I'm thinking of digging through my box of disks to see whether or not I can find 2008 (Professional).
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly VS6.0 has always been way faster than anything after it. 
Anyway, check out the history of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio#Visual_Studio_2008[^]
VS2010 was built with the goal of making everything faster and moving it to WPF, while forcing WPF to improve by dog-fooding VS on top of it. It ended up with some fast parts and some really slow parts, slow overall, but service packs fixed a bunch of those issues.
For me in ASP.net and C# land, I'd say it seems to be getting faster, but then performance of almost any app hasn't mattered since I've moved to using SSDs.
|
|
|
|
|
[opinion]
Rarely do newer software versions get faster than their predecessor. This seems to be the trend ever since MS rolled all of their major programming languages into a single suite.
[/opinion]
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
