|
Arthur Brown's Sister[^]. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
... you rewrite a brand new version of a former class of yours ...
and the new version is both shorter and more powerful! 
I just rewrite my IoC / IServiceProvider class which was 30% shorter with easier initialization and support for default parameters in constructors!
Now rewriting my serializer (I try to save my document with serializer, to make it easier) for a more compact format and more classes supported out of the box (properties, fields + now ICollection, IDictionary) and easier extensibility (with surrogate! simpler that custom serialization)! And it looks like it's gonna be much shorter too already! with text and binary stream support! 
(though this one is unfinished..)
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you are saying. Do it a bit relaxed, you can spare few % for the next round of optimizations after an year or so
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Prepare the next round of feel good! 
|
|
|
|
|
The feel ecstatic! On round 3.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, congratulations ! I look forward to reading the CP article.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Ahem.. about that... mmmm... arguably it was in the back of my mind though! 
Will take a while... currently doing the serialization reader... it doesn't work yet!
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't need to be a serial; just one article will do.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
hahaha.. joke? 
because working on a serializer!
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, if you have to explain a joke...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
each side can see the other side's IP in the packet header
but if we run for example tracert codeproject.com we see that a packet goes through a number of gateways between the client and the server .Isn't it supossed that each gateway changes the last gateway's IP address with its own so it can get the packet back ?
if it is so then how codeproject see my IP and not the IP of the last place the packet went through ?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
In any TCP/IP connection, the client's originating IP address is known to the server so they can return a response. You can spoof your IP but you won't receive any data back. The originating IP can often be the outside router IP. The trace you did merely shows the various hosts in the route from client to server. The originating IP is still transferred for the reason mentioned above. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like a Postal Letter right Nish? The "From" and "To" is always there on the covers, unchanged. No matter how many intermediate stops it goes through.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
An excellent example of layered protocols. IP, the lower layer, handles the node-to-node messages, as your tracert shows. But a couple of levels higher, the http headers convey the endpoint IP addresses required for end-to-end intelligence. Something like Wireshark will pull the packets apart for you, if you're interested.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: http headers convey the endpoint IP addresses required for end-to-end intelligence.
Intelligence? http is usually layered on top of tcp, which is the part that is handling all the intelligent stuff. Http on the other hand used to be really, really simple[^], but that's changing[^] ...
Both the source and destination addresses are part of the tcp checksum header[^] ...
Cheers
Espen Harlinn
Espen Harlinn
Chief Architect - Powel AS
Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
|
|
|
|
|
Http is almost an "application" of network protocols beneath.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
True enough 
Espen Harlinn
Chief Architect - Powel AS
Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
|
|
|
|
|
If they don't know your IP address, they can't reply by sending pages to you, and you've broken the Internet.
You really shouldn't do that. Mummy will be annoyed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm now working on my old desktop PC[^].
It turns out to be a sloooooow machine... What happened!?
I've used this for years without problems, but I've barely used it for a good year and it takes about four hours to install some updates (52, about 400 mb) and another four hours to install Visual Studio 2015 CE 
It hangs regularly, just doing nothing and then suddenly doing that thing I clicked on seconds ago.
Sometimes even my music just goes like "brrrrr" for about half a second because somehow my computer can't process any more stuff... IT'S NEVER DONE THAT! 
Perhaps I should look into upgrading some hardware or even buying something new... 
|
|
|
|
|
Did you take the back off and give it a good dusting, push everything into the sockets, check for foreign objects? Run a disk check, memory check, check check?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: give it a good dusting, push everything into the sockets
Yeah, it wasn't very dusty and the hardware was tightly secured into the sockets.
9082365 wrote: Run a disk check, memory check, check check
Yep, it seemed SQL Server was running all kinds of stuff that I never use, but installed once to play around with. Other than that no problems though.
I did a clean install about two years back. Maybe I should do that again... I've got most files backed up anyway.
If it's still slow after that it's clearly the hardware that's the problem.
First time you're giving me actual good advice by the way, thanks.
I'd thank you with an awesome song, but we all know how that's going to end
|
|
|
|
|
When a horse gets used to cantering and galloping, but then you dump it in a field to do nothing but graze for a year, everything about it weakens a little.
Given that you installed a fair number of updates (including, I presume, some cumulative ones), I'd give it a couple of cold reboots, just to make sure that everything is cleared out.
If you have Java installed, completely disable their update checker. If that thing finds an update, it seems to slow everything down until you either apply the update or kill the damned thing (I ended up renaming the .exe -- belt & braces, you know)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Gave it a couple of reboots and updated everything that needed updating.
It does seem to be a little faster (but it was really veeeeeeery slooooooow).
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: but I've barely used it for a good year and it takes about four hours to install some updates
Now why would you do that to a perfectly good working machine?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Now why would you do that to a perfectly good working machine?
With that logic we'd still be on Win 95.
Wait... I just got an idea[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
