|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: I suggest following the standard behavior of MDI (multiple document interface)[^].
Oh, wow. That's awesome. Thank you for sharing that with me, Ravi. 
|
|
|
|
|
Make it like one of those 'trillion pixel pictures', where everyone can populate a square range out of your 'windows'? See what type of overall 'picture' they would make when zoomed out, and the whole app sags under the pressure and brings the entire internet to its knees? 
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, if each Pixel costs 10 cents you'll be rich ... 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
MessageBox.Show(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature)
? $"This is my signature:{Environment.NewLine}{_signature}": "404-Signature not found");
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I like that idea!
David O'Neil wrote: Make it like one of those 'trillion pixel pictures', where everyone can populate a square range out of your 'windows'? See what type of overall 'picture' they would make when zoomed out, and the whole app sags under the pressure and brings the entire internet to its knees?
The cool thing about what you mentioned is that very same concept has come across my mind before. I have things engineered to allow for such a feature, but I haven't gotten around to trying the concept out.
I was thinking that you could design any window to expand to fill the screen, and it would convert the window into a new desktop element. Once the new desktop element is created, any child windows of that window turned desktop would display. It would be like having unlimited web apps that are all nested.
David O'Neil wrote: and the whole app sags under the pressure and brings the entire internet to its knees?
World domination would be all mine! I'm planning to take over the world anyway, but I can't find any nuclear ICBMs for sale on the Internet. Even on the dark web, I can't find any uranium 235, or plutonium. Not even Amazon sells it. Walmart? Nope. Target? Nope. Ebay? ...surprisingly not. If any of you guys can find nuclear weapons for sale, please tell me. I'll pay top dollar and give you 25% commission.
|
|
|
|
|
The Lounge[^]
And I need to be on a watch list because I do not like cats. 
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
"I've been busier than a three-legged cat in a factory where they make rocking chairs out of old razor blades."
- Me, responding to the 6,731st email asking when I'd be done
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd be closer to being done if I didn't have to respond to pointless emails, like this one."
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Busier than a cat trying to bury poop on a marble floor!
If you can't find time to do it right the first time, how are you going to find time to do it again?
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
My Dad used to say, "I'm busier than a one-armed paper hanger."
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
My dad used to say "Busier than a one legged man in an butt kicking contest"
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Downunder we say: Flat out like a lizard drinking.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Manager: How busy are you?
Me: Ten times busier than you.
|
|
|
|
|
So Sunday I got the Insider for Tuesday last week. This morning I received Friday's.
It is very hit or miss if I receive them at all and they are almost always at least 2 days late.
Thoughts?
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
The ePostman in your neck of the woods is a lazy so-and-so? 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
he really really is lazy. I need to flog that hamster more or we need more management. always need more management
*tongue firmly planted in cheek*
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Your tongue is so firmly in your check it's traveled up your eustachian tube[^] and is flapping away outside your ear.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
it is and it is a neat trick
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
and today. first time in awhile. I get it on time? hmmmmmm
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
I'm struggling with one of my hobby projects at the moment - I keep going down rabbit holes. I'm not exactly sure what features I want in it yet, I first need to come up with a rough prototype, some sort of 'minimum viable product' and let it evolve from there. Suck it and see.
At the same time, in the back of my head I know there are requirements for it to be low latency, hugely scalable and fault tolerant, and this affects how it should be written. So I'll look at it and go, hmm 64bit references - too large, too much garbage collection overhead etc. So I'll remodel it all as unsafe structs in unmanaged memory. Then I'll think about memory mapped files - that could be a way of avoiding long loading and saving periods and good for fault tolerance etc. etc. Turning my C# into some mad C parody.
Such efforts are kind of irrelevant in a sense as I don't actually have anything to scale out yet and hugely time and thought-consuming and generally stalls the whole thing. In the end I'll probably just get disillusioned and abandon it, like so many other projects. I've written down on a piece of paper on my desk 'No Rabbit Holes!' but I really struggle writing stuff that I know isn't taking into account nasty things down the road. Rabbit holes - they're like magnets.
Trying to think too far ahead is perhaps a tendency that kills things dead. Does this ring bells with anyone?
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't even count the number or projects I've contemplated. Few if ever started. Its like winning the lottery for me, thinking about them is as far as I've ever gotten
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: Trying to think too far ahead is perhaps a tendency that kills things dead.
I often fall victim to this. That's why I also try to force myself to produce the smallest part of the project possible to give it a jump start.
I've been contemplating a project which would save some data for the user. I started thinking about how to save the data. I've thought about it for so long I've almost removed the energy from the project entirely.
So, I finally hit on an idea I wanted to do with the data where the each user will get his own copy of the remote database (sqlite). It's an odd idea & I've contemplated it so much that finally I started writing a super small prototype that
1. allows user to save one "journal" entry each day
2. saves the data to her own copy of remote sqlite db.
I started writing it up (it'll be an article here on CP).
But along the way I hit an odd thing with posting data to .NET Core WebAPI where the API method was using [FromBody] to bind data.
I literally stopped the other thing and investigated the challenges with .NET Core WebAPI databinding and wrote up an article on it[^]. I hope I didn't lose momentum on the original project.
I'll force myself to continue that one today and finish a "good enough" version of the code and write up the article.
Yes, it's a challenge to get started...and then to keep going. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not alone!
Interesting idea about personalised databases. Where do you store the SQLite files, in a database? I guess the thing here is if you ever want to do a query that spans multiple users you are somewhat scuppered.
I've always been interested in the idea that a SQLite database file lends itself to the loading, saving and transmission of application data, rather than a database per se, but never tried it out.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: Where do you store the SQLite files, in a database?
That's a funny thought. No, each user gets their own "user-space" (in the file system on the remote machine) where their sqlite db will be stored.
Rob Philpott wrote: I guess the thing here is if you ever want to do a query that spans multiple users you are somewhat scuppered.
Aha! You're thinking like a data-mining corp. This is my point too.
I'm saying each user owns their own data in their own sqlite db.
It's just literally a way to help them make their data remote (for the sole purpose of making it available to their own various devices).
I'm also suggesting that since it is their own data, they can delete it or whatever. They'll be able to download it so a "local" copy of my app will run against the data so if they want to go "offline" with the app they can.
And, I don't plan on doing a "multi-user" search or examining the user's data at all. It's theirs and it's just so the data in the app can be accessed for the user's purpose...not so some evil empire can examine their data to sell them products.
This is also why I'm interested in this. if it is possible (technology-wise) and it should be then it means that software could work great for the end-user without ever having to have some evil empire looking at the user's data.
of course, that means if the customer deletes or destroys the data then it is gone. My app offers no help with that beyond user doing their own download/ backup. Swim at your own risk. But also you own your data.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
