One instance of an application [modified]
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
God, that must hurt. On the other hand, why not write a small sample application, demonstrate to your "head programmer" how it can be a single-instance application with the help of a named kernel object!
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
Just quit!
-
Just quit!
great idea in principal but in case you hadn't noticed not many jobs around right now so wait 6 months, then quit!
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
sounds like a great company to work with that encourages innovation and use of bleeding edge tech. It's not called Microsoft is it?
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
If my boss would have talked to me that way I'd show him exactly how much that title means to me... Close your laptop. Take your things. Leave (the company). good luck.
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
"I'm disgusted and repulsed and I can't look away..." -- Clerks 2
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
If the system crashes, how do you get it going again? :~
predragzakisevic wrote:
datasets, or LinQ to SQL
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
-
If my boss would have talked to me that way I'd show him exactly how much that title means to me... Close your laptop. Take your things. Leave (the company). good luck.
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview ArchiveI'm quite embarrased. Is it so humiliating ? I tried to close my eyes to truth but it seems a third person point of view shows the harsh reality. Thanx guys.
-
great idea in principal but in case you hadn't noticed not many jobs around right now so wait 6 months, then quit!
I have to go through this s***hole. I just opened my own company and i desperately need this paycheck to cover my expenses and my company's expenses.
-
I have to go through this s***hole. I just opened my own company and i desperately need this paycheck to cover my expenses and my company's expenses.
Please can you control you language. I don't mind commenting but I don't want to see some words!
-
God, that must hurt. On the other hand, why not write a small sample application, demonstrate to your "head programmer" how it can be a single-instance application with the help of a named kernel object!
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
Do you think he's a guy that can take from words ? or examples ? He is the most dogmatic and half-educated (i dont know if this term exists in english.In my country exists and its worse than uneducated) piece of crap i've ever met. For example , once i told him that i prefer to use enterprise library from microsoft than to write my own libs because its rather profound that i trust more microsoft's code than mine. The answer was : "I don't find the reason not to write our libs. Even microsoft's code is written by people...so why to trust it more than ours ?" Incredible ??? Do you get it now ?
-
great idea in principal but in case you hadn't noticed not many jobs around right now so wait 6 months, then quit!
That's true.
-
Please can you control you language. I don't mind commenting but I don't want to see some words!
My apologies dude.
-
If the system crashes, how do you get it going again? :~
predragzakisevic wrote:
datasets, or LinQ to SQL
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
He doesnt read .net documentation or books. He can found it out by himself. Seriously talking now, once called me to his office to ask me what was that :
Dictionary<string,string>giving me at last the advice to stay away from technological verbalisms. :wtf: -
My apologies dude.
No worries.. just please don't do it again.
-
I'm quite embarrased. Is it so humiliating ? I tried to close my eyes to truth but it seems a third person point of view shows the harsh reality. Thanx guys.
Each person's reaction is different for each situation. It's up to you to define what you want: - blindly chew whatever is thrown on your plate. - Choose the ingredients and the preparation method yourself. You would be surprised how many people will choose option #1 and are perfectly happy. There is NOTHING wrong with option 1. I just prefer option 2. It is more difficult, but I somehow have more satisfaction out of it. PS: I'm not talking about starting for yourself. I'm talking about the way your job should be for you. I prefer a job where creativity and innovation are encouraged ;).
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
He doesnt read .net documentation or books. He can found it out by himself. Seriously talking now, once called me to his office to ask me what was that :
Dictionary<string,string>giving me at last the advice to stay away from technological verbalisms. :wtf:OMFG :wtf: This really makes me think of my teacher informatics who keeps insisting on using Access databases for EVERYTHING, and working with windows 2000 cause it's more stable >_> Respect for your position dude. I'm just happy that I don't have such an employer, and will always check their nubness level before accepting any job. Some of the ppl are just sad >_> Cheers BN
GSoC 2009 student for SMW! --- My little forums: http://code.bn2vs.com --- 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65!
-
Do you think he's a guy that can take from words ? or examples ? He is the most dogmatic and half-educated (i dont know if this term exists in english.In my country exists and its worse than uneducated) piece of crap i've ever met. For example , once i told him that i prefer to use enterprise library from microsoft than to write my own libs because its rather profound that i trust more microsoft's code than mine. The answer was : "I don't find the reason not to write our libs. Even microsoft's code is written by people...so why to trust it more than ours ?" Incredible ??? Do you get it now ?
Sounds like this guy loves to reinvent the wheel instead of using the F1 racing wheels that have been developed over years and matured into stable, proven code. Have you tried quantifying the development time in terms of labour cost to the company? and compare that to using the off the shelf tools? maybe its time to drop marketing lingo on him with "time to market" etc etc. PS: Does your forehead have a calis on it from banging your head against hte wall?