5 hours ago, cheong wrote

Wrap your code with using block, when leaving the block it'd call dispose on the TcpClient underneath, which will close the connection.

TcpClientChannel doesn't implement interface IDisposable so it can't be used in a using block.

It seems there is no clear way to disconnect explicitly. I think the idea is that the connection will be closed when the lease expires or the client interface instance is GC'ed.

This actually creates a problem for me because due to a complication of the code that the server PInvokes into, the server needs to restart itself between sessions. When this happens and I re-create the interface on the client side using Activator.GetObject, it somehow returns the previous interface instance (probably tries to re-use the previous one due to Singleton) but any calls to it will throw an exception because it isn't connected to the server anymore. I hacked around this problem by putting the code shown above into a loop and if the exception is thrown, try again. It always seems to succeed on the second try.

I'm just thinking there must be a way to close the connection explicitly but I can't figure out how.

But it is good to know this feature was added to 5.0.

BTW this is all my own code so I have full control over what happens where. However I need this because hand-coding each method is going to take a long time, vs simply copy/pasting the same thing everywhere.

Anyway, everything works well except... I' can't figure out how to disconnect from the client side. Specifically, I'm following the pattern where the server/client shares a common interface declaration, and there is no shared DLL. However on the client side, I have a reference to the interface, but since it isn't derived from MarshalByRefObject, I can't figure out how to initiate a clean disconnect from the client side.

On the client, I'm doing this:

var channel = new TcpClientChannel();
var url = "tcp://" + ipAddress.ToString() + ":" + port.ToString() + "/MyService";

ChannelServices.RegisterChannel(channel, false);

var remoteApi = (IMyInterface)Activator.GetObject(typeof(IMyInterface), url);

Anyone have an idea?

public void Foo()
{
    StartMethod(new StackFrame());
    ...
    ...
}

StartMethod will then log whatever is passed in as the stack frame.

I tried to do this once with reflection but I couldn't figure out how to do it.

1 day ago, myefforts2 wrote

This is totally possible. Add the contract files to the client project as a link (Add | Existing Item | Add As Link). If you're willing to create the ChannelFactory on the client yourself then you don't need any config either.

Yes I ended up adding the common files as a link to the other project. This works well and is the best way to share common files between different projects. I remember using links to files in a previous version of VS (maybe it was VS 2008), but it was very flaky at that time. Sometimes VS would get confused and even end up crashing. But it seems to work flawlessly in VS 2012.

This is what I want to do now:

Server:

• Define an interface and add ServiceContract, OperationContract, etc attributes.

Client:

• Be able to consume the interface defined by the server without requiring a shared DLL or XML config file at runtime.

Now the server and client are both projects within the same solution, and will never be compiled separately, but will run on different systems. So it is possible to share the same source files between the two projects (maybe that's all I need?). What I am looking for is to end up with both the server and client having a single *.exe file and not require a shared DLL or config file.

Is this possible with WCF?

1 hour ago, Bass wrote

Let the hate out young padawan. We shall begin your training in a fortnight.

It will be a long time before I jump ship though. I find the alternatives to be even worse.

Kindle Cloud Reader is not available for this browser on Windows 8. Please download the Kindle App from the Windows Store.

Note I'm Metro Land while I see this message. It then links to the Windows 8 app that I already installed.

Fantastic.

8 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

How many people actually read e-books using a PC? OTOH, reading books is one of the primary use cases for an iPad.

Then what is the point of the "Cloud Reader" if no-one reads books on a PC?

1 hour ago, spivonious wrote

http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2011/08/10/amazon-kindle-cloud-reader-to-support-additional-browsers-and-tablets-in-the-coming-months/

 Still pretty lame that they're excluding at least 40% of their visitors, especially when IE9+ supports the standards just fine.

 

That article was written on August 10 2011.

8 minutes ago, Charles wrote

This has little to do with Microsoft's relevance... It's more about what platforms Amazon chooses to target. Given they have their own devices, it's sort of obvious that they'd target them first and foremost. Or, am I missing something?

C

Yes, you are missing something. Windows 7 has a much larger install base that iPad, so why no Windows 7 support?

Only available on these devices:

• Kindle Fire
• Kindle Fire HD
• Kindle Cloud Reader
• Kindle for iPad
• Kindle for Android

Hmmm, weird. Amazon has a Windows Phone Kindle app. Maybe someone just forgot to update the above list. Let me search for that book via the Windows Phone Kindle app... "Sorry, not available on your device". Why? Why would the book not be compatible with the WP Kindle app?

Oh well, let's check out the "Kindle Cloud Reader" (this was on Windows 7 running the latest IE 10). Sorry, only available for Chrome, Safari and Firefox. So what happened to following web standards and if the browser doesn't support it, well then you can decide to change browsers at that point. As opposed to just hard-coding web browsers out?

I've been a long time supporter of MS but after MS got hit with Apple-envy, everything that I liked about MS have either been abandoned, Metrofied, dumbified, crippled, fuglified, castrated or became stagnant to the point where I can't even think of a single MS technology that excites me any more. None.

So in some way the above Amazon experience doesn't surprise me. I wonder how many people still think everything is just peachy in MS land?

17 hours ago, PopeDai wrote

*snip*

The iPhone has the best picture-taking experience of every phone I've used - though it's a combination of having a great lens, great sensor, great screen to display pictures on, and a great processor to reduce latency and startup times. All of the other phones tend to get something wrong. (Disclaimer: I still haven't used a Windows Phone handset yet).

Wow, have you even seen the reviews comparing different phone cameras? iPhone is average at best.

Did anybody actually complain about the Windows 7 desktop?

Maybe I'm confused, but I vaguely remember Windows 7 being hugely popular, especially after Vista.

So I guess some people will continue to argue that Microsoft and customers are somehow better off today after the desktop castration in Windows 8, vs how it would have been if they instead just continuing to refine what we had with Windows 7.

So what's your answer? Are we better of with Windows 8 the way it is now or worse?

My vote is worse, since I hate the pile and just installed Classic Shell to get some form of productivity back again. It's still fugly though.

13 hours ago, Charles wrote

Love the honesty and openness. This is C9 in action. Thank you.

I'm curious how all of the innovation and investment in developer tools and platforms going on at Microsoft somehow equates to our losing touch with our developer base.

Are you still upset that we moved the spotlight from .NET only to include other models and tools? Did the demise of Silverlight mean it's all over? Do the investments in .NET AND native AND script AND IDE AND compiler technology AND... demonstrate a lack of focus or passion or direction?

Just out of curiosity, what's wrong with wanting more people to develop on our stack? When has this not been the case, historically? When you build a programmable platform, the idea is that you want people to program it.

C

I think this points to one big problem. When you are on the "inside" you think everything is rosy and don't understand what the problem is. You get to go to meetings where the plan is discussed, explained. If you have a question, just go up to the right person and ask.

Contrast with those of us on the outside... We have no clue what is happening. We have to rely on rumors, confusing conferences that go gaga over HTML but has no info about the technologies we rely on today and whether they will still be there tomorrow. Slowly realizing some things are just going to die off due to no more development, etc etc. We don't get to go to meetings where this is explained or get to ask the right person. We do ask, we just don't get any concrete answers we can rely on.

Charles, are you still going to ignore the fact that we repeatedly say that we don't even know what we are supposed to use for desktop (read: real) applications anymore going forward? How could it possibly have gotten this bad?

So yea, excuse us for being confused/upset. The mentality that everything is rosy and we as outside developers have no reason to complain is just preposterous. Seems everyone in MS has a distorted view of how people currently view MS, especially developers. Developers Developers Developers are losing faith and MS is too blind to notice how they are going off to find alternatives.

It amazes me that MS can throw things away that obviously worked for them in the past. This new direction (based mostly on Apple-envy) isn't working and will be a big factor in what makes MS become irrelevant in the future.

4 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@BitFlipper:

Funny, because my opinion of Microsoft has only increased over the past few years. Maybe Microsoft decided that the BitFlippers and the figuerreses of the world aren't worth paying attention to, and the Bass and fanbabies of the world are.

Of course the opinion of trolls would increase - MS is in self-destruct mode.

I'm no MS hater (see my older posts), yet I'm *starting* to hate them due to their bone-headed decisions. There was a time when I was excited about many MS technologies: Windows, .Net, WinForms, WPF (although this is where my interest started fading), Silverlight, Visual Studio, DirectX, XNA. Now almost every single one of those are in one or another state of being dead, going into some bizarre direction nobody asked for or wants, or is in some sort of limbo state where nobody knows what its future is - you know, due to Apple envy where MS no longer tells anyone about their roadmap like they used to. As a Windows developer I would not even know what MS technology I should choose for a new desktop project I plan to maintain for at least the next 5 years. Please don't tell me it should be a "Modern" app. I'm talking about a real application here.

Sad really. MS had a lot going but due to some mind-boggling dumb decisions, they've lost almost all of that.

2 hours ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

Yea, but not for people used to drag and drop installer dev

It's not about whether it is easy or not. It's about how much time is wasted creating an installer for even a simple project, let alone a complex one (and learning how to do it - as if that is where I can afford to spend my time). You can go ahead and be sarcastic about people only knowing how to drag and drop, however I've wasted days now investigating various alternatives to something that literally used to take me 5 minutes. And I still need to spend more time on it to get it to the level where the VS 2010 installer used to be.

EDIT: Maybe that mentality is the problem with MS in general... Completely ignorant about the impact of their choices.