cdwatkins

Back to Profile: cdwatkins

Comments

  • Silverlight Geek - An interview with Jesse Liberty

    1) If I make a UserControl.  How can I make, for example, the Background color of the layoutroot (grid) be settable from the designer?  I want to hook-up the background property to the grid.

    First you set a property on your usercontrol.  Any property on the user control well be settable in the designer if blend knows how to display its type (such as a string/enum/color etc.).  Then you databind the grid to the usercontrols property.  So you would write something like this in the xaml for the user control: <Grid Background="{TemplateBinding Background}"/>.  You will probably want to make the usercontrols background property be a dependancy property, so that other people can bind data to it (although making DP's are a little more challenging go look it up).

    2) How, in c#, to set the Margins of a control?

    If I remeber right you get a refrence to the control (such as by its ID), and then just type myGrid.Margin = new Thickness(60);  Thickness has several diffrent overloads if you want to set each side diffrently.

    3) I have a SL3 project am testing.  Can't seem to get other browsers (i.e. non-dev) to install the SL control.  Is this because you need to install the SL dev on the client first?  Or should it just download and run SL3beta normally.  Do I have to wait for RTW to have other clients be able to load SL3?

    SL3 as far as I am aware does not have a go-live license yet.  As such they have only released the developer's runtime.  The user must have the SL3 runtime already when it starts to have it work right.  The reason for this is they didnt want people getting "autoupgraded" to SL3 if SL3 had a bug.

  • Raja Krishnaswamy and Vance Morrison: CLR 4 - Inside Type Equivalence

    Nice guys.  Lots of info about how everything works.  You know alot of diffrence pieces of the .NET framework core depend on each other fairly tightly.  I would think this would be a great feature to use to break up all the different parts  Where each "section" of the .NET core framework would interact with the other parts through an interface.  Then you could even have diffrnet parts of the framework "upgrade" without having to recompile.  Every .NET assembly has inside it all the links that are attached when that DLL is loaded.  I would think it might be possible to then figure out which sections (and versions of those sections) that were needed and then download just that small little piece of the .NET framework.  Like say you had a WPF app.  On running it finds the client doesnt have the "whole" .NET framework and that it needs to load the new pieces, it could only download the WPF stuff (and the stuff that requires), and nothing to do with ASP.NET or winforms or debugging etc.  Lots of intresting ideas on how to build my own frameworks using this.

  • Shawn Farkas: CLR 4 - Inside the new Managed Security Model

    Thank God!  Well done guys!  As someone that has been working with the silverlight security model for some time now, I have to say its a hell of a lot easier to understand and work with.  Glad to see that getting back into the core clr.

  • Vance Morrison: CLR Through the Years

    WOOOT for default interface implementation!  This is something that I have wanted for a long time.  Is this going to be in .NET 4? Or some latter verison?

    I know in the VS2010 beta released yesterday I got the error "interface members cannot have a definition", so I assume its some latter version of .NET?

  • Ruchi Bhargava on Windows CardSpace Geneva

    The problem is that cardspace (the client side part), is vista or Win7 only.  No public website is going to ever use this without cross OS support.

  • Get Windows 7 RC Now!

    I have been recently using Win7 on an old labtop with 384Mb RAM, and I have had no problems.  With vista you couldnt run with anything less then 1Gig of ram without problems in terms of performance.
  • The Future of SQL Data Services with Nigel Ellis

    One other question.  How will (if it will) the filestream type work.  Normaly this stores it outside the database in normal NTFS.  In the cloud would you have some kind of Azure Blob Storage that would store these files?  Would they count twords the 10gig max on SDS?
  • The Future of SQL Data Services with Nigel Ellis

    10 Gigs really?  I mean I have used 2TB databases. I think you will find people will really need at least 100 Gigs.  Consiter something like Exchange backup where you got all kinds of emails and attachments being stored.  Something like that NEEDS a large database cap.  And the cop out of saying well you can create a bunch of little databases doesnt work as you cant run cross-database queries.
  • deCast - Building an Azure App Part I: Setup and Hello World

    Having already done this once, I found the hardest part was trying to take Windows Azure Storage linked into the ASP.NET project linked into .NET ria services so the silverlight app could access it.  Doing any one part of that wasnt too tough, but trying to mix the technologies together (especialy given that there is no cloud based domain service so you have to kind of write your own).

    I fear alot of people are going to skip a few steps and access the windows azure storage directly from the silverlight client, and thats just totaly insecure.
  • Erik Meijer and Matthew Podwysocki - Perspectives on Functional Programming

    You talk alot about the Maybe monad, but you never mention the Nullable type in c# that I think is the same thing.  Both say there might be a value or there might not be.  The one thing I think c# does need is just to have a "pure" modifier  (like the static modifier), which doesnt allow any side-effects by not allowing access to the global and local store (just like the static modifier doesnt allow access to the local store of the object).  And then add a new type (like Action or Function) which would be a PureFunction, so that can you pass a pure function as an argument.
  • Manuvir Das: Introducing Windows Azure

    I really like how microsoft is setting up this Azure enviroment, where every application is compleatly scallable, and protected from any kind of hardware errors.  What I would like to see though is an extention of the "developer" version of azure (the one used by visual studio), so that we can take azure applications, and run them on our machines using our bandwith.  It would be a more "advanced" version as it requires a bit more provisioning, but it would all compleatly scallability from one single computer (like the developer version of azure that already exists), to an intranet behind a company firewall, and then out on the web hosted by someone like microsoft. 

    There are several reasons for this "corporate" version of azure.  I know that you guys pay tons of money for your hardware and bandwith, and that cost will have to be passed on to us companies creating these services, while I can get much cheaper hardware and bandwith if i dont care as much about 24/7 service (not to mention all the support staff that you guys must have for this).  The second reason is that not all data can be stored out on the cloud.  Especialy very sensative data (credit card #'s, social security #'s, medical records, etc), where it just cant (for reasons of regulations or buiesness reasons) be hosted by someone else.

    I dont care if azure takes over all the machines (ie no other OS running), and I would expect to pay a per machine (or cpu/core) cost (as well as a per machine cost for each of the machines that can use the extra services like sql services).  But having a uniform way of provisioning a group of 10-100 servers, along with automatic duplication and failover on my own servers would be really nice.