Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


zhuo zhuo
  • Persistence Framework in .NET

    I've worked with SubSonic in a recent project and it's an absolute pleasure to work with. Zero configuration for ORM mapping and low learning curve.

    The learning curve is about 1 day if you put your effort into it. If you need longer than 1 day either IM me or leave a comment in my blog and I will write you something that will get you through the learning curve quickly. Check it out at subsonicproject http://subsonicproject.com/

    Sorry for digging up this old post but I thought it appropriate to leave a note in this post since other people has left good suggestions.

  • Queue - Processing In Order

    I am not sure if I've understood your question.

    If you have a queue and presumably that queue is built up chronologically, why would record 1 ever get processed after record 4?

  • sending db diagrams to your customers (2005)

    I always take a screenshot and paste it in paint. Works reasonably well unless if you have a lot of tables.

  • what is significant about Mars?

    Massif wrote:
    Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote: 
    Sabot wrote: We are out growing the Earth.

    The human race is expanding at such a rate we will run out of resources and space.
    We are already eating into our natural habitats at an alarming rate. So the answer is we either expand outward or start placing limits such as stop breeding or eating or driving cars. Even if we start replacing all our power stations tomorrow with Nuclear Fusion (instead of fision) we are still knackered because the natural rate our population is increasing.

    So the problem isn't bad now, but if we wait till they are it will be to late, starting now will allow us to have a solution just in time for when it does get bad. So we may not so the fruits of out labours in our own life times but thats ok.
    Ever been to Montana? There's tons of room out there. Or North Dakota/South Dakota. Plus, there's shale oil, a glut of recyclable materials in some places, and we still have natural gas fields. I seem to remember reading about a gas field in the Pacific that could be bigger than anything we've ever seen, but if it isn't drilled right, it could release a crazy amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Interesting nugget: Iran has what is likely the world's largest natural gas field (according to Wikipedia). Yet they need nuclear energy...huh...

    The "we're running out of space" argument never quite cut it with me. Are people suggesting continual mass exodus from earth? Do you genuinely think that the surplus population can leave the planet regularly, without having a severe impact on our resources.

    No, I don't think leaving the planet will help with population problems as the poorest will be unable to leave, and will simply reproduce in situ, whereas the richest will leave and populate somewhere else.

    Finding another planet won't help the population problem, unless an incredibly cheap superluminal transit method is discovered.

    Alternatively, Condoms are pretty cheap and effective

    We are not running out of space, just out of resources, clean air and we are killing the atmosphere which protects us, melting the icebergs that has kept sea levels at bay.

    To be able to conlonize other planets means we will need to create better technologies for recycling air, water and materials and that we will be able to create a habitable artifical environment on a long term basis. All of which will benefit earth as well as any potential space colony.

    Once we can create a satellite colony (like a bigger version of the space station) then mass exodus from earth may be possible with the invention of the space elevator (which is theoretically possible and although currently infeasible right now, but we will get there).

    With regard to the population problem, i think it will cure itself. As developing economies become developed economies there will be less reliance on creating children as a way of investing for old age, this is already evident today in developed economies.

  • what is significant about Mars?

    Dr Herbie wrote:
    zhuo wrote: Eventually we will have to move off Earth to find other inhabitable planets, I guess colonizing Mars is naturally the first step to take.

    Why will we 'have' to move off Earth?


    We are running out of resources and more importantly the way we live is unsustainable even if it's just for the next 100 years!!!
    Population growth may be slowing in most developed economy, but the overall population of the world is still rapidly growing and if everyone on earth wants to live the same lifestyle as the developed economies, earth simply cannot handle it.

    Even if we assume unlimited resources on earth, one day the sun is going to run out of energy and we will need to move to another solar system anyway.

    Not to mention climate change, which will probably destroy earth long before the sun runs out of energy.

    Hope that's reason enough.

  • what is significant about Mars?

    I wouldn't be surprised if they've found water.

    Back to your question about what's significant about Mars?

    Eventually we will have to move off Earth to find other inhabitable planets, I guess colonizing Mars is naturally the first step to take.

  • ASP.NET ViewState (flawed ​architectur​e?)

    stevo_ wrote:
    I wouldn't say its a 'flawed architecture' at all, it was designed with its purpose, not to rely on the session...

    Yes and I agree with the idea of ViewState, only that in cases where you want to perform bulk editing and updating (as is in my case) the ViewState causes problems.

    Which is why I am suggesting that ViewState should be encoded and decoded individually for each control, this way it gets rid of the problem with large ViewState while at the same time achieving what ViewState is useful for. Just an idea I guess.

  • ASP.NET ViewState (flawed ​architectur​e?)

    stevef100 wrote:

    look at the SessionPageStatePersister for a way to keep viewstate server side that is inbuilt into asp.net 2.0. The client recieves a simple viewstate key which is used to lookup the viewstate server side


    Thanks for that, I will look into it. This should be adequate for my purpose. It should also makes the user experience a lot more responsive.


  • ASP.NET ViewState (flawed ​architectur​e?)

    cheong wrote:
    zhuo wrote: 

    I might be wrong, but what you've said about size limit could not possibly be true based on experience.

    No. The size limit for the hidden input control is documented. And the most frequently seen exception report when I join this company is "Invalid Viewstate" exception on Mac_PPC clients running IE5 for Mac. (The exception is cause because the viewstate is trimmed by the browser hence become corrupted). It takes me a good week to disable disable viewstate of individual pages.

    It could be because of our business nature (my company is running printing business), but you'd be surprise how many exception report I've seen because of this.(About 30% of our customer still uses iMac running Mac OS 9.X)

    I know that for both IE6 and Firefox, my app works fine and I've checked with one particular scenario where the ViewState is as big as 206kB and all postbacks works fine in both browser.

    It would still be nice to know if some of you out there has a solution to the ViewState problem.

    Any comments welcome.


  • ASP.NET ViewState (flawed ​architectur​e?)

    cheong wrote:
    I'll say that it's expected.

    You know, the viewstate is stored in a hiddenText element which is 1024 byte in Mac and 4096 byte in other browsers of other systems. If you have too many controls and you don't selectively enable the viewstate for each item, you're destinated to burst the limit.

    But is there anyway to tell ASP.NET to use Session instead to store "state" data?

    I might be wrong, but what you've said about size limit could not possibly be true based on experience.

    I agree that the problem i described is expected, but my point though is that ASP.NET probably should have implemented one hiddenText field per controls type of scheme, so the states of individual controls are loaded on the page independently, thus no issue with the problem described.

    In anycase Ruby on Rails doesn't even need such a thing as ViewState in order to retain state, but that might be because they have a simplified representation of html elements thus not requiring to store extra info related the ASP.NET controls.