Blog Home  Home RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0 CDF  
The Efficient Coder - Wednesday, June 11, 2008
There has got to be a better way of communicating with our computers!
 
 Thursday, June 12, 2008

I've built some ASMX web services (yes these should be converted to WCF, but they work for now).  I'm starting to use these as Script Services for some ASP.NET Ajax Enabled pages.  I ran into a problem where some of the "stuff" I didn't want to have happen in some properties on the objects returned by the server were getting executed even though they were marked as [XmlIgnore()] which disables them for SOAP tASMX type web calls.  Apparently when the returned objects get serialized as JSON for a script service, they ignore the [XmlIgnore()] tag, which I guess makes sense but is rather inconvenient, in that I need to go back and do a manual search & change.  Within the using System.Web.Script.Serialization namespace there is another attribute you can decorate your properties with called [ScriptIgnore()] that seems to do the trick.

-ec

6/12/2008 10:07:58 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [1]   ASP.NET | WCF | AJAX  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, June 11, 2008

I've got a couple mobile projects that need to provide communications services to a centralized server.  Over the past year or so, I've been getting to know WCF a little better and the more I learn, the more I think this is the one by far that in all the latest Microsoft technologies, that you should invest your time in learning.  Saying that, it would seem logical to think about using WCF as the technology to communicate on our mobile devices.  I'm not sure the answer is clear to me yet on this one.

First, what do I LOVE about WCF, if I had to sum it up, I would say three things,

  1. The formality of defining and implementing contacts for our communications
  2. The ability to configure and for the most part not worry about the transport details when coding your service
  3. The ability to do duplex messaging, I still need to spend some time to see how this works under the hood from a scalability implication, but the concept in general seems powerful.

Saying that, we can make the following assumptions about the current state of mobile devices and applications:

  1. In most cases the device is going to be a client on the client/server side of the equation
  2. Our computing horsepower just isn't the same
  3. Based upon my experience in both worlds (desktop/web AND mobile devices) I would say you can crank out 3-5 lines of desktop/web code in the same time it takes to get one line of mobile code into production
  4. Code on mobile devices can't easily be updated so it really has to be right the first time
  5. As good as our mobile platforms are these days, there are still a few quirks that are beyond our control and device specific

Therefore, most of the benefits of going with WCF really aren't that great in a mobile device.  And if a technology really doesn't provide much value, it may make more sense to keep it simplest technology with the fewest moving parts.  I think as with anything new, one needs to implement and analyze the results.  As I mentioned earlier, I don't have answers here yet, but wanted to start capturing thoughts.

-ec

 

6/11/2008 7:08:05 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [2]   .NET 3.5 | Mobile | WCF  |  Trackback
 Thursday, June 05, 2008

I've got an awesome battery in my laptop

I wish I could find more like this

-ec

6/5/2008 7:06:10 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]    |  Trackback

Annoying VS.NET "Feature"

 

I have a fairly large ASP.NET application that has a large number ASP.NET WebParts built as Custom Controls (150+) in a compiled assembly .  I've been getting a little annoyed with VS.NET (I'm using 2008 right now, but saw the same behavior in 2005) where after I get done compiling I have to wait 20-30 seconds while VS.NET does ?something? and freezes the UI (can't ?someting? this be done in a worker thread).  Anyway I think I've finally figured out what's up, it would appear anytime I open anything that requires a designer (including an ASMX page) the tool box get's populated with all the custom controls as part of my project.  It would seem as soon as the tool box is populated it needs to be refreshed and that's what's taking the 20-30 seconds.  So therefore if I don't open anything requiring a designer, I'm OK.  I think I've gotten used to this for ASPX and ASCX pages since they normally open up in the HTML view, but I'm still clicking on ASMX and Services design surfaces and end up shutting down VS.NET and restarting without a design surface open.

 

Maybe my project isn't typical, but it sure would be nice if I could use design surfaces at some point.

 

-ec

 

6/5/2008 7:08:30 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]   .NET 3.5 | ASP.NET  |  Trackback
 Saturday, May 24, 2008

LINQ 2 SQL - SQL Server Compact Edition 3.5 - Provider Not Found

If you are working on a 64 bit machine and get the error message

Provider 'System.Data.SqlServerCe.3.5' not installed.

when you attempt to connect to your database, open your project properties and on the build tab, change your target platform to x86 and you should be back in business.

-ec

5/24/2008 5:48:29 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]   .NET 3.5  |  Trackback
 Sunday, May 11, 2008

More Help Available

I got this one while trying to spin up a 3.5 WCF Service and it made me chuckle...no comment necessary...

-ec

5/11/2008 2:33:36 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [1]   .NET 3.5  |  Trackback
 Saturday, May 03, 2008

Development or Discovery

The biggest cost in any software development effort is always a factor of time.  It became pretty obvious to me while working on a new reporting project.  I've worked on a "ton" of systems over the past few years and with very few exceptions I can sit down and start making tangible progress very quickly (this may not be evident to my clients while I'm working on the plumbing, but that's a topic for another post) but with this project I've got about 4-6 hours into it and although I'm making headway on a couple of fronts I'm starting to sense the "churn" where it's more of a discovery process than a development effort.  How much of your time is spent in discovery and how much in pure development?  I think the ratio of discovery to development is major factor in developer efficiency and thus the time/cost in a software development effort.  Although some external factors such as training, pair programming, documentation and mature processes may help with this ratio, the biggest impact on the ratio will be the person doing the development.

Discovery does not provide any real business value.  Discovery is a critical investment that needs to be made.  Just as you invest in your financial future, you should invest in your professional one as well.  Once you’ve made this investment you start building capital, the capital can then be used to increase your Development time, this is where your investments should pay off.  As Frederick Brooks states in his timeless classic “The difference between an exceptional developer and a Mediocre one is generally an order of magnitude”.  Why is this the case?  One reason is Developer Efficiency  but the other is the capital the developer brings to the effort.  Effective program manager realize this.  When we talk about capital/experience/knowledge this can really be in three categories, general technology, domain specific, implementation specific.

Technology Capital

You, my dear reader are 100% responsible for this.  If you work for a corporation that’s nice in that they may pay you to learn this knowledge, but in the end, this is how to program an Http Handler in ASP.NET or write a SQL Query, create a clustered index and so on.  These skills are not implementation specific.  The wider background of skill sets you have the more capital you will have and the more value you bring.  As a consultant, if I am stuck doing “discovery” on a new technology I very rarely bill the client for this time.  My clients pay me to “develop” they assume I know they technology.

Domain Specific

This is where you can start developing additional capital.  Unless you pick on specific vertical, there will always be a portion of the time working on development efforts where you will be doing discovery within that domain.  An example of this is my experience working in a Sales Force Automation company for 3 years on a number of different efforts.  Although there was an initial learning curve in this vertical, over time the value I brought to the table during the system design meetings increased, the more knowledge I brought to the table, the quicker we could talk about what made their problems unique and in most cases these so-called “unique” problems were actually solved in other efforts and that experience could be capitalized on.  My goal going forward is to pick a new domain every other year and start gaining that knowledge.  Have you worked in one industry all your life?  How many jobs are there in that industry?  How well are you compensated in your industry with respect to others?

Client/Implementation Specific

Now is where it get’s interesting, each client does indeed have certain technologies, systems, database schemas that are unique to their organization.  I would suspect that a considerable number of developers are “experts” in this area.  As a consultant I worked at one client for about 3 or 4 years.  They made a considerable investment in me in their specific data, not only just the structure, tables but also the subject matter.  I made a significant investment in time in their data.  At the point I started scaling back my work on their efforts, I had a much better understanding of the data within their systems then anyone did internally.  This was a great engagement for both parties (Client & Software Logistics) however when I look back over those 3 or 4 years, what can I take away from that client specific data knowledge?  Not very much as it turns out.  From a billing perspective, I don’t have any problem doing “discovery” of a clients systems on their “nickel” especially if in the long run that knowledge won’t be useful anywhere but their systems.

The bottom line is in software development, the more capital you bring to the table, the less time you are doing discovery and the more time you do performing development.  You are paid by your organization as an employee or a consultant to do development and not discovery.

-ec

5/3/2008 12:43:26 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]   Software Engineering | Software Metrics  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, April 29, 2008

While attempting to get ruby to connect to a SQL server using DBI.connect I ran into a bit of a challenge...getting the error message

'load_driver' is not a class/module

To resolve this :

  1. Download ruby_dbi the files from http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=234&release_id=20222
  2. Create the directories under \ruby\lib\ruby\1.8\ called \DBD\ADO
  3. From your extract copy the file ADO.rb into that directory

This works with V1.8.5-24

Here's hoping this might save some one some time.

-ec


 

4/29/2008 5:41:22 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]    |  Trackback
Copyright © 2012 Kevin D. Wolf. All rights reserved.
DasBlog 'Portal' theme by Johnny Hughes.
Pick a theme: