I've been in the market for a new laptop for the last few months. With the upcoming new laptop ideas coming out (Tablet PC's, Smart Displays, etc.), I decided to wait for the technology to catch up to my desires. Finally everything is out!
Back in ancient history (the mid '90's), I worked with Toshiba tablet systems running Windows 95 for a vertical market package. I loved the form factor and secretly wished for a touch display for my laptop for years now.
Ok, maybe this may be petty, but why do so many sites require that 'www' before the names? I have wasted lot sof time trying to navigate to sites by just their domain name, only to find out that I need the 'www'. What do I mean? Both of these should work:
But then why would some develop a site that doesn't work like that. For example (with apologies to Brent Rector):
I recently read about the reemergence of Code Generation on Chris Sells' News page. It seems that John Lam has been converted, but not by Chris. As some may know, I worked with Chris Sells while he lead the team that built DevelopMentor's Gen<X> so that I have been thinking about this code generation question quite a long time now.
When I first read the SOAP specification I could not decide whether it was meant to be a replacement for DCOM/RPC or whether it was a messaging protocol. I loved the fact that the ligua franca of SOAP was XML. But at the same time, Section 5 supported the RPC view of SOAP. Unfortunately this section seemed to just confuse the issue between the RPC world and the document/literal world.
In a great MSDN Article, Tim Ewald argues against support for Section 5 support. I guess I haven't been keeping up, but I am excited to hear that Section 5 support is now optional in SOAP 1.2 specification. Yeah...but will Section 5 really ever die?
I like to think I am open minded about technology. I have used a variety of database engines in the last seventeen years; xBase, Access, SQL Server, Sybase, Oracle, and DB2 to name a few. I like the direction Oracle 9i is taking and hope that Microsoft's SQL Server takes some of the same direction. But I think Oracle is missing a great opportunity.
I have been reviewing a bunch of code that utilizes ADO.NET's DataAdapters. This code has been some samples that are on the Internet, some questions directly to http://wildermuth.com and others from DevelopMentor's .NET Mailing Lists. One thing I have noticed is that much of that code is opening the database connection before using the DataAdapter to fill a DataSet.
This does work, but there seems to be some confusion about how this should work. In fact, under the covers all DataAdapters open and close the database if it has not already been done. This is because the DataAdapter knows when to open and close the connection to the database to minimize the length of time that the precious resource (the connection) is actually open. This is what the code looks like that I've been reviewing:
I just attended the second day of Chris Sells' and Tim Ewald's great Web Services DevCon East and had a great time. Yasser Shohoud gave a wonderful talk on "The Right Way to Build Web Services". He echoed something I have been thinking of for some time. Sure, I didn't want to learn how to write WSDL. At the same time I know that the WSDL that is generated by using the '?wsdl' syntax of ASP.NET's .asmx files does not let me design the interface first. I changed my mind and learned to write WSDL. WSDL really isn't too difficult to write. It is too bad that we cannot disable the ?wsdl syntax and just use a static WebService.WSDL URL to have our customer's get our WSDL files.
My natural inclination is still influenced by my days developing COM components in ATL. I want to define the interface up front like we did with IDL. In the early days of ATL, I had been doing MFC work and did not want to hand-code my own IDL either. You would think I would have learned by now that by starting with interface is the better development model. By writing our own WSDL we can define our interfaces (both the calling convention and the schema of the message) and run WSDL.exe to build a skeleton class for us to implement the service.
Why is everyone so down on using DataSets in .NET Web Services? Sure, I’ll admit that using DataSets directly as Web Service parameters are indeed a problem. But why throw the baby out with the bath water?
For the uninitiated, DataSets are a problem as Web Service parameters because XML that is automatically generated as the parameter is a DiffGram of the DataSet. Unfortunately DiffGrams are simply not interop-friendly. At the end of the day the obvious use of DataSets in .NET Web Services are simply a bad idea.
I was recently in a DevelopMentor course when I ran into a very interesting observation. The XmlSerializer serializes any class that dervies from XmlNode (including XmlDocument, XmlElement, et al) as plain XML. Previous to RTM of the .NET framework, these classes were serialized like any other class (all public properties and fields were serialized). To our amazement (Dan Sullivan and mine), we realized that the XML classes serialized perfectly when run through the XmlSerializer class.
Ok, neato but why do I care? As a developer using ADO.NET, I realized that by utilizing the XmlDataDocument and specifying an XSD for my DataSet, I could have my Web Services return an XML as specified by the XSD without ever doing transformation of the data going out of the Web Service.
|Vue.js by Example (New Lower Price)|
|Bootstrap 4 by Example (New Lower Price)|
|Intro to Font Awesome 5 (Free Course)|
|Building an API with ASP.NET Core (New Course)|
|Building a Web App with ASP.NET Core, MVC6, EF Core, Bootstrap and Angular (updated for 2.2)|
|Less: Getting Started (New)|
|Using Visual Studio Code for ASP.NET Core Projects|
|Implementing ASP.NET Web API|
|Application Name||WilderBlog||Environment Name||Production|
|Application Ver||v4.0.30319||Runtime Framework||x86|
|App Path||D:\home\site\wwwroot\||Runtime Version||.NET Core 4.6.27617.04|
|Operating System||Microsoft Windows 10.0.14393||Runtime Arch||X86|