|
My current solution has 74 projects in it. Not something that is either practical or recommended, but in my defense, I didn't create the project structure. Microsoft did, so that explains that! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
modified 7-Sep-18 4:16am.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny J. wrote: 74 projects
I'm not alone. Feels good  haha
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer to keep it as few as possible.
Every application gets its own separate solution.
Shared libraries get their own solution and go in a NuGet repository.
The most projects in a single solution I currently have is like 10.
Most I've ever had is probably more like 15-20, as you say.
With microservices the number of projects in a single solution has gone down even further.
The pros are, of course, faster loading and building times and smaller and faster pulls from source controls.
The only downside I see is that it's sometimes difficult to develop multiple solutions at the same time, especially with microservices where one is dependent on the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The only downside I see is that it's sometimes difficult to develop multiple solutions at the same time
To develop multiple solutions, what I do is add a temporary project in one solution change the reference to the temp dll and develop there. After the development is complete I just report the changes to the other solution and change the reference back to the original dll.
30 mins of extra work reduce a considerable amount of cuss words.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I do that too sometimes 
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
thank you for sharing this.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
modified 7-Sep-18 10:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
At my previous job we merged with another company and their solution had over 120 projects in it. And the plan was to merge their main product with our product. Needless to say I'm glad I'm not there anymore.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I've spent years working (with others) on a product, with VS 2005 through the current 2017, that has grown to 80 projects so or. No instance of VS during that time has ever choked on it.
It's not terribly fast, but it probably works as well as one can reasonably expect with something like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: This means, I would prefer to keep all the 30 projects under the same solution (this is a bad idea?)
Ugh, no. Each of the 30 projects is its own solution with a reference to the Common project (note, the project, not the DLL).
And use a build automation took to build all the different solutions. And hopefully you have some decent unit tests so that when you change something in Common, you know when you've broken something in the other projects.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm referencing the common dependencies as projects. But we can really reference a project directly in TFS? I'm yet to figure this out.
Common Dep. projects used to live in their own solution folder in TFS directory, with their own unit testers.
When two solutions utilize this dll, I have to down the 3 solutions separately (which means 3 VS instances), & manually ADD the common dll project to both the application solutions. I felt its a bit messy.
When I do this, the solution files unnecessarily checks-out , assuming I'm going to add the Dll project into the solution. I cannot do it , as it becomes a duplicate in every application solution that's using this dll project. Some devs in team have mistakenly done this too. After referencing the Dll project, they accidentally checked it in along with the app solution, creating an independent copy. 
Ideally, if App solutions can add a shared dll project virtually, from the TFS & share across multiple solutions , it'd would be awesome. But that's where Nuget is doing it's job, but with binaries.
In other words, Just like how Nuget is working for sharing binaries, if the same could be done for common projects, it'll be great.
Please excuse me if I've typed something stupid. I'm still trying to figure things out with TFS & common projects mapping.
By far, Private-Nuget repo sounds clear & usable.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
Build Automation tools - Yes I'll explore this. Need to see how close this would for real-time needs.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
A few weeks ago you ordered your 3025 model General Motors MAD-3R Marauder. It's currently still being custom painted and undergoing checks. Please have the have the purchasing price of 12000000 C-Bills ready when it is going to be delivered.
Ok, it's scaled down a little. Let's say 1:72, like airplane models. So it's only 1/72th of the full price.
Here it is[^]. 3D printing is done and was not always easy. The model has been primed and the gray base color has been airbrushed onto it, but there still is a bit of work to do in detailing and aging it.
Before someone asks: I printed that thing because I need something to practice airbrushing, detailing and aging on. If I ruin something, I can always print new parts and try again. An expensive model would be a waste and i can learn enough to avoid ruining the other model, which I finally want to see some paint on.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: Ok, it's scaled down a little. Let's say 1:72, like airplane models. So it's only 1/72th of the full price. 
Shouldn't that be 1/(72^3) of the full price? After all, it's 3D not 1D.
CodeWraith wrote: Here it is[^].
Very nice!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, Griffenegger has not woken up yet, at least he has not yet complained about the bill.
Anyway, after only 15 years since MechWarrior 4, I think I'm going to get both Battletech and the upcoming WechWarrior 5[^].
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks really good, you'd do something similar? Not now but some day?
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Atlas! Mech Warrior! Awesome !
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
The old Marauder already is fun. A test drive is only a registration away: MechWarrior Online[^].
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Tried MWO once, but i didn't get the feeling like from 2/3/4 Single Player Games. Therefore i quitted it. And to be honest i guess the "Franchise" died with MW 5.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
HobbyProggy wrote: And to be honest i guess the "Franchise" died with MW 5.
MW 5 has not been released yet. Have you been time travelling again? MW 4 is really showing its age now and I hope some of the stranger ideas will disappear.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Blame on me... i was thinking of the black knight expansion for MW 4 Vengance, sorry 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
MW 4 Mercenaries was fun. In some missions you even had alternative choices how to do them. Ambush the Clans at night or challenge them openly. They are insulted because you come with two lances against a trinary star and offer them to rebid if that's not enough for them.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Mercenaries was actually funny, but it kinda felt strange for me. But let's see what MW 5 is up to
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
