How long before the next version??

[Patrice Scribe]

Ok Joe so :
- you have framework support (non compiler native) for non zero based array
- as you don't like the syntax, I suggested you could have something close
from what you seems to prefer
- a third option would be to sustract the base index from the index (or use
zero based array as we can in most cases)
- perhaps could you share with us the solution you are currently using ?

The problem is to avoid performing too much work on each release. If an
object is disposed my understanding is that a proper implementation will
remove it from the finalization queue as there is no need to clean up
internal unmanaged resources (already done when calling dispose !). The fact
that the memory is not released immediately (it seems you collapsed these
two steps in the "keeping them in limbo" expression) would allow to reuse
this same area without needing to reclaim it once you gave it back to the
OS. I admit memory allocation under .NET and in particular its relation with
the underlying OS would be interesting to see more detailed...

The thing I find really amazing is that you seems to have so much concerns
with the .NET architecture. Do you use .NET as it seems, or are you using
something else, coming here for the pleasure of discussing politely with
uneducated people such as myself ?

Patrice

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> a écrit dans le message news:
3d3ed5e3@10.1.10.29...
> "Patrice Scribe" <scribe@chez.com> wrote in message
<news:3d3e7a8e$1@10.1.10.29>...
>
> > > You mean, besides their imbecilic design, interface, and
implementation?
> > >
> > >
> >
URL:http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache...thlink.net/~bu
tlerbob/VBNet/ArraysX.htm
> >
> > If you need a simpler syntax you could probably create a class (I know
you
> > shouldn't have to but if you choosed .NET you may want to workaround
these
> > issues) to obtain something like :
> >
> > Dim MyArray As New IntegerArray(10,20) ' Upper To Lower
> > Dim i As Integer
> > For i=MyArray.GetLowerBound(0) To MyArray.GetUpperBound(0)
> > Debug.Write(MyArray(i))
> > Next
>
> So much for your specious claims that the .NET framework natively
> supports non-zero based arrays, especially when we'd be much better
> off rolling our own than tolerating the framework's "support", eh?
>
> > > Perhaps if you were actually familiar with VB 4.0, 5.0, or 6.0, you'd
> > > know about this obscure, insignificant, almost unknown feature known
> > > as the "Class_Terminate" event? Maybe you'd even know that *having*
> > > to *explicitly* call Close methods and Set references to Nothing tend
> > > to be the hallmarks of badly designed and/or buggy components, such
> > > as earlier versions of DAO, RDO, and ADO:
> > >
> > >
URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40tkmsftngp04
> >
> > I'm used to Close and Set objects to nothing in VB6. IMO it documents
the
> > fact that you don't need an object later in your code. Also it allows to
> > release things like a database connection as soon as you don't need it
> > anymore rather than waiting for the variable to be out of scope.
>
> Are you "forgetting" that objects on the "finalization queue" are NOT
> cleaned up automagically when they go out of scope? Sure, it's best
> to .Close/.Dispose/.Whatever objects that you can know you don't need
> anymore, but that hardly justifies the GC's keeping them in limbo for
> arbitrary lengths of time if you don't, as even some Java zealots are
> finally willing to admit:
>
> URL:http://cuj.com/java/articles/a24/a24.htm?topic=java
>
> You don't actually know much about .NET's architecture, do you.
>
> --
> Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> L. Ron Dullard
<http://www.xenu.net/>
> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're
coming to
> because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away,
ha ha!
>
>

[Zane Thomas]

"Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote:

>They're coming to
>take me away, ha ha!

They already did, we're hoping the meds will start working some day soon.



--

*--------={ Fine Art for .NET }=--------*
| .Net Components @ www.abderaware.com |
*---------------------------------------*

Turn on, tune in, download.
zane a@t abderaware.com

[Kunle Odutola]

"Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP> wrote in message
news:3d3ed5e3@10.1.10.29...

> So much for your specious claims that the .NET framework natively
> supports non-zero based arrays,

The CLR does.

> especially when we'd be much better
> off rolling our own than tolerating the framework's "support", eh?

"Rolling your own" [if and when existing solutions are inappropriate] is
indeed what programming is all about. What's your point?

> > I'm used to Close and Set objects to nothing in VB6. IMO it documents
the
> > fact that you don't need an object later in your code. Also it allows to
> > release things like a database connection as soon as you don't need it
> > anymore rather than waiting for the variable to be out of scope.
>
> Are you "forgetting" that objects on the "finalization queue" are NOT
> cleaned up automagically when they go out of scope?

Who cares?. They are out of scope!
If they are facades for scare resources, there are a number of documented
design patterns for dealing with this very rare situation.

> You don't actually know much about .NET's architecture, do you.

As opposed to someone who claims not to use or care for .NET?

Kunle

[_CAG]

Will these show up as products to buy or updates to apply to the existing
product?

I'm in no rush to convert and wouldn't want to buy just before a new release
comes on the market.

Thanks,
Cal

"Jim Pragit" <NoSpam@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:3d3c256b$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Hi Cal,
>
> There are two new versions of .NET in the works. The first is code-named
> Everett which is essentially .NET version 1.1. Everett is scheduled to be
> released later this year. The next major release, code-named Whidbey, is
> NET version 2.0. This is scheduled to be released by end of 2003. Keep
> in mind that Microsoft tends to slip on these sort of deadlines so take
these
> dates with a grain of salt.
>
> For more information, see the following article:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C39...73783%2C00.asp
>
> - Jim
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not
> believe in it at all.
> - Noam Chomsky
>
> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> >Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> >released?
> >
> >Cal
> >
> >
>

[Patrice Scribe]

I believe I understood finally your main concern. Simply said you want :
- to make sure you don't have forgotten a Dispose call (if you admit this
is the programmer's responsability to say you don't need an object any more)

IMO it could be quite interesting to be able to access to the number of
objects that are currently in the finalization queue (don't know if it's
readily available either through a class or perhaps as a performance
counter). This way your debug build could include a check at the end of your
code that would allow to find out if :
- you have objects left in the finalization queue either because you forgot
to call the Dispose method or because the Dispose method doesn't suppress
the objet from the finalization queue (in which case it would be an
implementation problem for this component).

Constructive comments someone ?

[cut]

[Michael Bennett]

In article <3d3fe510@10.1.10.29>, scribe@chez.com says...
> I believe I understood finally your main concern. Simply said you want :
> - to make sure you don't have forgotten a Dispose call (if you admit this
> is the programmer's responsability to say you don't need an object any more)
>
> IMO it could be quite interesting to be able to access to the number of
> objects that are currently in the finalization queue (don't know if it's
> readily available either through a class or perhaps as a performance
> counter). This way your debug build could include a check at the end of your
> code that would allow to find out if :
> - you have objects left in the finalization queue either because you forgot
> to call the Dispose method or because the Dispose method doesn't suppress
> the objet from the finalization queue (in which case it would be an
> implementation problem for this component).
>
> Constructive comments someone ?
>
> [cut]
>
>
>
If I understand Joe correctly, in part, he is worried that the users of
components that he writes will not dispose of them correctly. What would
be the impact of having the components automatically dispose themselves
rather than exposing a dispose method?

Also there seems to be some concern over the interaction between COM and
the GC. If you use interop, what is in charge of the cleanup? Does the
COM component hang around until the GC cleans up or does it destroy
itself immediately? I don't understand all this very well but I can
imagine situations almost like a kind of circular reference where COM
and the GC get confused.

Isn't your finalization queue monitor a type of reference counter?

Michael

[Michael Gautier]

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
>Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
>released?
>
>Cal
>
>

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946395.html?tag=fd_top

There is mention of a 3rd release.

[Patrice Scribe]

Inline...

"Michael Bennett" <mikey0131@mac.com> a écrit dans le message news:
MPG.17a9c3fd20968229896b2@news.devx.com...

> If I understand Joe correctly, in part, he is worried that the users of
> components that he writes will not dispose of them correctly. What would
> be the impact of having the components automatically dispose themselves
> rather than exposing a dispose method?

This is not a problem for most classes but if the class uses an unmanaged
resource (such as database connection or COM component), the db connection
will be alive as long as the object is not "finalized". It would be
interesting to be able to track down these cases.

> Also there seems to be some concern over the interaction between COM and
> the GC. If you use interop, what is in charge of the cleanup? Does the
> COM component hang around until the GC cleans up or does it destroy
> itself immediately? I don't understand all this very well but I can
> imagine situations almost like a kind of circular reference where COM
> and the GC get confused.

I don't think it could cause a problem but we have the same issue as above
(i.e. if the programmer forgot to explicitely say he's done with the object
the object will be still alive until it is finalized).

> Isn't your finalization queue monitor a type of reference counter?

This is not mine ;-) The finalization queue is a existing queue handled by
the GC that holds a reference to all objects that needs to be finalized
(because they are using an unmanaged resource). These objects implements the
IDisposable interface. When you call the dispose method, the unmanaged
resource is cleaned up and the dispose method should remove the object from
the finalization queue. See :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/cpguide/htm
l/cpconcleaningupunmanagedresources.asp

If you forgot to call the Dispose method, the object is still in the queue
and its clean-up method will be called for you but at a later time...

I saw a #finalization/sec counter that could help (a total number would be
much convenient for a test at the end of the code). IMO this counter should
be always 0 if you never forgot to dispose explicitely something ???

At least this is my current understanding...

> Michael

Patrice - soon in holidays ;-)

[_CAG]

But nothing new on the market sooner then a year from now?
Cal


"Michael Gautier" <vb@vb.com> wrote in message news:3d407891$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> >Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> >released?
> >
> >Cal
> >
> >
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946395.html?tag=fd_top
>
> There is mention of a 3rd release.

[Patrick Steele [MVP]]

In article <3d410d37@10.1.10.29> (from Patrice Scribe
<scribe@chez.com>),
> The finalization queue is a existing queue handled by
> the GC that holds a reference to all objects that needs to be finalized
> (because they are using an unmanaged resource). These objects implements the
> IDisposable interface.

Not necessarily. An object gets in the finalization queue when it has a
"Finalize" method defined (not because it implements IDisposable). An
object could (in theory) implement IDisposable but not have a finalize
method, although that wouldn't be good practice, IMO.

> Patrice - soon in holidays ;-)

Enjoy!

--
Patrick Steele
Microsoft .NET MVP
http://radio.weblogs.com/0110109

[Patrick Troughton]

Not to be rude for the second day in a row, but did you even bother reading
the link Michael Gautier posted for you? The second line of the article answers
your question. You have the reading comprehension skills of a .NOTter.

/Pat

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
>But nothing new on the market sooner then a year from now?
>Cal
>
>
>"Michael Gautier" <vb@vb.com> wrote in message news:3d407891$1@10.1.10.29...
>>
>> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
>> >Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
>> >released?
>> >
>> >Cal
>> >
>> >
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946395.html?tag=fd_top
>>
>> There is mention of a 3rd release.
>
>

[_CAG]

I wasn't asking you. Why do you feel it necessary to jump in and answer if
it upsets you.

I did read the article and the one Jim Pragit pointed out, but did not
understand if the Everett release referred to a product I might buy,
updates I might apply to the product released last Feb, or maybe something
else. I'd bet the more experienced readers understood and I'd appreciate it
if they pass it on to me.

Jeff Johnson, Patric Scribe and Jim Pragit took the time and tried to be
helpful (which I very much appreciate) and if I understood it will not be
this year, but I was confused about the Everett release.

It's not a big deal, I was just curious. I'll probably buy whatever is on
the shelves this Sept ( but I'll feel bad if a new release is on the selves
in OCT.). I surely didn't want to upset anyone.

As for the rest of the thread - I just wish I knew enough to be concerned
about things like that.

Cal

P.S. Just a word advice - if you were rude two days in a row you might give
some thought to why. This NG is full of people who do not find it necessary
or desirable to be anything but helpful.


"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3d41694d$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Not to be rude for the second day in a row, but did you even bother
reading
> the link Michael Gautier posted for you? The second line of the article
answers
> your question. You have the reading comprehension skills of a .NOTter.
>
> /Pat
>
> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> >But nothing new on the market sooner then a year from now?
> >Cal
> >
> >
> >"Michael Gautier" <vb@vb.com> wrote in message
news:3d407891$1@10.1.10.29...
> >>
> >> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> >> >Does anyone have a guess as to when the next VB.NET version will be
> >> >released?
> >> >
> >> >Cal
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946395.html?tag=fd_top
> >>
> >> There is mention of a 3rd release.
> >
> >
>

[Patrick Troughton]

I didn't say it upset me. I just couldn't help but notice that your question
had been asked and answered several times now. I'm not sure what part of
"the next version will be released by the end of the year" you did not understand.


Speaking of being helpful...there's an ancient Buddhist proverb says that
people have two ears and only one mouth for a reason....

/Pat

"_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
>I wasn't asking you. Why do you feel it necessary to jump in and answer
if
>it upsets you.
>
>I did read the article and the one Jim Pragit pointed out, but did not
>understand if the Everett release referred to a product I might buy,
>updates I might apply to the product released last Feb, or maybe something
>else. I'd bet the more experienced readers understood and I'd appreciate
it
>if they pass it on to me.
>
>Jeff Johnson, Patric Scribe and Jim Pragit took the time and tried to be
>helpful (which I very much appreciate) and if I understood it will not be
>this year, but I was confused about the Everett release.
>
>It's not a big deal, I was just curious. I'll probably buy whatever is
on
>the shelves this Sept ( but I'll feel bad if a new release is on the selves
>in OCT.). I surely didn't want to upset anyone.
>
>As for the rest of the thread - I just wish I knew enough to be concerned
>about things like that.
>
>Cal
>
>P.S. Just a word advice - if you were rude two days in a row you might give
>some thought to why. This NG is full of people who do not find it necessary
>or desirable to be anything but helpful.
>
>

[Kunle Odutola]

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3d41a2e6@10.1.10.29...

> Speaking of being helpful...there's an ancient Buddhist proverb says that
> people have two ears and only one mouth for a reason....

I presume you _meant_ to paraphrase that as "...two eyes and one mouth..."
for this medium right ;-)

Kunle

[_CAG]

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3d41a2e6@10.1.10.29...
>
> I didn't say it upset me. I just couldn't help but notice that your
question
> had been asked and answered several times now. I'm not sure what part of
> "the next version will be released by the end of the year" you did not
understand.
>

....I did not understand if the Everett release referred to a product I
might buy,
updates I might apply to the product released last Feb, or maybe something
else.


Cal

>
> Speaking of being helpful...there's an ancient Buddhist proverb says that
> people have two ears and only one mouth for a reason....
>
> /Pat
>
> "_CAG" <CAG@a-znet.com> wrote:
> >I wasn't asking you. Why do you feel it necessary to jump in and answer
> if
> >it upsets you.
> >
> >I did read the article and the one Jim Pragit pointed out, but did not
> >understand if the Everett release referred to a product I might buy,
> >updates I might apply to the product released last Feb, or maybe
something
> >else. I'd bet the more experienced readers understood and I'd appreciate
> it
> >if they pass it on to me.
> >
> >Jeff Johnson, Patric Scribe and Jim Pragit took the time and tried to be
> >helpful (which I very much appreciate) and if I understood it will not be
> >this year, but I was confused about the Everett release.
> >
> >It's not a big deal, I was just curious. I'll probably buy whatever is
> on
> >the shelves this Sept ( but I'll feel bad if a new release is on the
selves
> >in OCT.). I surely didn't want to upset anyone.
> >
> >As for the rest of the thread - I just wish I knew enough to be concerned
> >about things like that.
> >
> >Cal
> >
> >P.S. Just a word advice - if you were rude two days in a row you might
give
> >some thought to why. This NG is full of people who do not find it
necessary
> >or desirable to be anything but helpful.
> >
> >
>