|
Why do you keep asking the same question?
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
App-domain, According to my understanding is, like in the presentation layer, I am giving memory to at dll at run-time, on completion of operation, this is segregated from the presentation layer ?
Please correct if there is any mistake.
modified on Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. Slightly confused by what you're saying. These are totally different things.
Your presentation layer is typically your GUI or other type of user-interface.
An AppDomain is conceptually like a mini-process (Window's process) that can be hosted with others in a single Process, for the benefit of performance/scalability etc. whilst providing some isolation between other domains.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I'm building a plugin system for a hardware communicator system.
So a plugin is actually a device communicator and the core program has many plugins that communicate with devices and write something to the database.
Now, I have solved many things, I have made a DevicePlugin interface and have dynamically loaded and instantiated the plugins, and it works. The only thing that is bothering me is plugin crashes, for some reasons a plugin can sometimes crash (throw an unexpected exception) and a single plugin can crash my entire system.
So my question is is there some way to put the entire plugin assembly intoa try catch so when plugin crashes the core system remains intact.
Any help greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Load each plugin into a separate AppDomain and set the AppDomain's UnhandledException handler.
Also, unless plugins are starting threads that cause crashes, you can simply wrap a try/catch around the point where you call into the plugin. But if they're talking to devices they probably do.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you I will try that.
|
|
|
|
|
To second what Bob says, AppDomains are great for plug-in architectures. As well as providing robust protection of the process if something goes wrong, you can also unload them and that's the only way to 'unplug' a plug-in (craziness aside).
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I have an annoying issue where I could use some advice.
I created a small windows service which uses at standard time-intervals different COM components.
Every time the COM components are instantiated in their own thread, the required methods are invoked and the COM components are subsequently released and their threads end, the main thread can then evaluate the result of each COM component's action.
For some COM components(third party) a problem occurs from time to time and the instantiation of the COM object blocks the thread. Even calling an Abort on these threads is not possible because doing that causes the main-thread to block.
The COM components are simply instantiated using:
<br />
System.Activator.CreateInstance(comType);
The comType is gotten using:
<br />
Type comType = Type.GetTypeFromProgID(sComName);
If this blocking happens frequently, the memory of the process increases steadily due to all the blocked threads that I can't stop.
So what I need is an ability to use the COM components, and still be able to clean up the threads in case such a block occurs. Does anyone have any ideas how I could accomplish that?
Regards,
Davy
|
|
|
|
|
GDavy wrote: Does anyone have any ideas how I could accomplish that?
An ugly workaround, but you could consider putting them in a separate app and using IPC to communicate with the COM-component. Once the app seems to hang, you kill it 
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
After much painfull and brain numbing reading I still don't understand why its not possible to cast between Action<T> and Action<object>, can anyone please explain this in small words (I currently have the brain of a 5 year old).
There was a poem written along time ago by a person dying with lots of pain, he called it 'Brother Pain', I'm about to write a poem called 'Brother Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Action<T>' to 'System.Action<object>''
An example:
public class Base
{
public Func<object> OnComplete {get;set;}
public Base(Func<object> onComplete)
{
OnComplete = onComplete;
}
}
public class GenericBase<T> : Base
{
public GenericBase(Func<T> onComplete) : base(onComplete)
{
OnComplete = onComplete;
}
}
____________________________________________________________
Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
modified on Thursday, March 31, 2011 3:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
It says 'implicitly', so have you tried an explicit cast?
public class GenericBase<T> : Base
{
public GenericBase(Func<T> onComplete) : base((Func<object>)onComplete)
{
OnComplete = (Func<object>)onComplete;
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Did it build on your side? On my side I get 'Cannot convert type 'System.Func<T>' to 'System.Func<object>''
At least now my build error message is different
____________________________________________________________
Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
|
|
|
|
|
Adriaan Davel wrote: After much painfull and brain numbing reading I still don't understand why its not possible to cast between Action<T> and Action<object>,
Because T might be an integer, and that's not compatible with object.
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I understand what you mean, this object x = 1; works...
____________________________________________________________
Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
|
|
|
|
|
Your example would still be an object, allocated on the heap. To use x as an integer would still need to be converted (int)x = ?
|
|
|
|
|
Adriaan Davel wrote: this object x = 1; works
That wraps your value-type with a reference-type; your number is actually stored in the object, but a number is not an object itself.
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, but in non-generic syntax this works:
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Calc(1);
}
private void Calc(object val)
{
}
but in generic syntax it doesn't?
____________________________________________________________
Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
|
|
|
|
|
"Shouldn't"; there's a difference between simple types (anything that's a value) and classes, that's why there's a "where T:class" constraint
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
I know that, and object allows me to pass either and respond accordingly inside the method to which I passed the parameter
____________________________________________________________
Be brave little warrior, be VERY brave
|
|
|
|
|
..because you can check what type of object that it is. That's what VS does at compile-time, and since an integer isn't an object it gives an error. It could be wrapped in an object, that's true - but if that's what should be done, then it has to be explicit. Remember that you can't inherit from an integer, so it does make sense to differentiate between the parameter-behaviour and the generics' behaviour
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
In .net, everything is an object. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of those generalizations that I loathe. Yes, structs are objects too.
..but that doesn't make 'em interchangeable
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: but that doesn't make 'em interchangeable
Yes it does, assuming the container being used to intercahnge them types the variable as object.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Yes it does, assuming the container being used to intercahnge them types the variable as object.
The keyword here is "assuming", and your assumption is a leaky abstraction
Reference-types are objects, value-types can be boxed in an reference-type. And no, a namespace isn't an object, it's not even a type.
Once you state that everything is an object, people will assume that anything can be used as a base to derive from (since OO is partly about inheriting from existing objects).
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Once you state that everything is an object, people will assume that anything can be used as a base to derive from
Any non-sealed Type can be used as a base to derive from. What's your point?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
