C#

JD86 wrote:

So if the application crashed (it shouldn't.. but you never know) or if the
process was killed for some reason.... it won't be running anymore.

JD86 wrote:

So if the application crashed (it shouldn't.. but you never know) or if the process was killed for some reason.... it won't be running anymore.

Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

JD86 wrote:

nor do I care for the way you are coming off.

JD86 wrote:

A Windows application is better in this case instead of a web application.

With a windows application a user can EASILY click a button to take a screenshot that has the error message on the screen. With a web application this would not be easy if possible (maybe with installing some active-x crap or something).

JD86 wrote:

So if you want to get technical then a web form for submitting a ticket is less ideal than an application that we can push out with our monitoring service.

JD86 wrote:

Anyways I'm not going to worry about something to make sure the process is running at all times. I think it will be a rare occurrence when it isn't running anyways... so we can just deal with that when it comes.

Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

UCLAdam wrote:

Am I approaching this right with an abstract base class or should I be taking a different approach?

UCLAdam wrote:

But I also just want to be able to call _profiles.CurrentProfile.Rename(...).

namespace bla 
{
    abstract class DuckBase
    {
        abstract public void Rename();
    }
    class RubberDuck: DuckBase
    {
        // implementation 1
        override public void Rename()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Squeek");
        }
    }
    class MallardDuck : DuckBase
    {
        // implementation 2
        public override void Rename()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Quack");
        }
    }

    class Program
    {
        // These are the type of ducks we support. You could also use a string or 
        //  an int to identify them, just choose an enum for this example
        enum KindaDuck { RubberDuck, MallardDuck };

        // this is what's called a factory-method; it returns an actual implementation 
        //  of a "DuckBase"-object
        DuckBase DuckFactory(KindaDuck DuckType)
        {
            switch (DuckType)
            {
                case KindaDuck.MallardDuck: return new MallardDuck();
                case KindaDuck.RubberDuck: return new RubberDuck();
            }
            throw new IndexOutOfRangeException(DuckType.ToString() + " is not a known duck.");
        }

        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            DuckBase ducky = new RubberDuck();
            ducky.Rename();
            Console.ReadKey(); 
        } 
    }
}

Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

UCLAdam wrote:

Thanks Eddy, your reply really helped.

UCLAdam wrote:

I thought it would probably have to be a strategy-pattern to decide which derived class gets instantiated.

I know it must be intentional, but just checking that in your example the DuckFactory isn't actually being used?

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    // here the enum determines which object is created; you could program the same
    //  with a string. (Say, DuckFactory("MallardDuck"))
    DuckBase ducky = DuckFactory(KindaDuck.MallardDuck);
    ducky.Rename();
    Console.ReadKey();
}

Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Jun Du wrote:

Any info or suggestions?

--edit
Another downvote for the collection. Was it that really that annoying that I did not check? Here's[^] your article - you're welcome

Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Member 8461599 wrote:

It should be in a try block?

Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

try
 {
     ...
 }
 catch (Exception e)
 {
 }

Bernhard Hiller wrote:

You are not able to catch them here,