It isn't an oversight. It is a deliberate move. Windows XP is over 10 years old. I personally feel Microsoft has done a great job of supporting Windows XP as it is now 3 OSes behind current version. Mainstream support ended in 2009 yet they have still released major updates for it. Windows XP is now in extended support which just covers hotfixes basically. With regard to orgs not adopting framework 4.5 due to it not supporting Windows XP, I've actually seen that as a pretty good pressure point on management to finally upgrade those machines to more current OSes.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

Might want to not read so closely... How about I say it this way? The picture is VERY different from place to place worldwide.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

I was just trying to make sure that was clear to CodeProject users that didn't click on the link and read the article. It floored me when I read that and was wondering in what context that is true.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

That is for Indonesia. When you believe what you read, make sure you know what you are reading. Worldwide the picture is VERY different.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

The last sentence in the OP is what I was replying to. He asked if this is usually done in SCC, to which my response was that it is the easiest way. I did however fail to provide specifics which I should have done.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

You shouldn't have to manage channels. You only need to if you are trying to use features of channels. Look up some basic WCF articles here on CodeProject. You are basically just trying to execute a remote method. That is very straight forward with WCF.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

A TFS project is not analogous to anything in Visual Studio. It is more for permissions and work item types. For most people/teams they will work out of the same TFS Project. I've never strayed out of my TFS Project. We just have different folders for each Visual Studio Project. External teams have a different folder for their team still within our same TFS Project. The only time I've seen people use other TFS Projects is when they have a different permission model, or different work item types they are tracking against.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

All the questions you have asked are hard to answer without business requirements. My personal opinion is use whatever technology you understand best and is best for the job. The important gotcha with this is you also need to spend time learning new technology all the time (but really? is that not required anyway?). Also, the biggest suggestion of technology and pattern practice I can give anyone is Inversion of Control or Dependency Injection. It is absolutely amazing what you can do with it and it is really simple to implement. It also promotes decoupling and good design/seperation of classes. Makes the lives of Dev and Test a million times easier hands down.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

It is. It was meant to serve as an example, albeit a bad one. Changing a hash function is something I have seen done in this scenario. The havoc this wreaks is... absolutely terrible. I don't even want to get into the details but knowing that this was the cause of the problem, FROM ANOTHER FREAKING PROJECT was angering to say the least.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

Source control is by far the easiest way to do this. It gives several benefits, to name a few: Reverse Integration (fix a bug in one, move it everywhere) Single point of backup (Developers don't have all the code on their machine) Versioning Simple version differencing Many more. Once you start using something like TFS you'll never go back.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

As with many things, it depends... We do the same thing a lot where I work. Sometimes we reference a DLL, sometimes we share the project, sometimes we copy the project and reverse integrate the changes. Referencing a DLL is the safest answer. You always know what version you are running against and upgrade it when you decide to (Test can run full test passes and make sure nothing broke by doing so). Sharing a project is very dangerous and is rarely used. If you change an interface in project B, project A probably will no longer compile. Making a copy of the project and reverse integrating changes is one of the best solutions. It allows bugs to be fixed from both sides of the project and each side gets to decide whether or not to integrate those fixes. This even has the added benefit of allowing you to heavily modify some things (Interfaces, Classes ect) that would otherwise break the other project while still being able to take some bug fix type integration back. I'm getting tired so hopefully that makes sense.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

It is a little unclear as to what the setup is. Are there 9 servers and 9 clients (each running their own instance of WCF)? Or is there only 1 WCF service and 9 different clients accessing that same instance of the WCF service? If you are just having the WCF service build an image and do no server side logic, I would remove the WCF service all together. If there is server side logic, then 1 instance of the WCF service is usually ideal since you only need to update the application in 1 place and the clients all get the functionality (unless the clients require an update as well).

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

Here is an article right here on CodeProject. Read/Write App.Config File with .NET 2.0[^] It should still work for future versions of .NET as well.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

I am working on a series of projects that will share several libraries/assembies. Some projects will be part of shared solutions, some will not. I am looking at the best way to setup my SCC server (TFS 2010). My current thought is have a shared Assemblies folder that each project has a branch of. The problem is after a while (months, years, ect.) that Assemblies folder will get pretty big, as well as contain several versions of DLLs. How do you guys go about doing this? I've seen suggestions to have each project have it own Assemblies folder, but I would really like SCC to have the Assemblies folder out of project level as well. Any ideas? P.S. Sorry if it doesn't make too much sense, I am over tired and took a sleeping pill for good measure.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

I thought about doing that but it feels dirty, doesn't feel very relational databaseish...

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

When he logs in, check if he has a license, if not, redirect him to a page where he can get one...

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

I am working on a simple game where you take creatures into battle and they fight against each other. Everything is working fine minus figuring out the best way to store the results. I want something similar to this data structure. int ID (identity) int AttackerID int DefenderID int AttackerCreatureID1 int AttackerCreatureID2 int AttackerCreatureID3 int DefenderCreatureID1 int DefenderCreatureID2 int DefenderCreatureID3 and then more for the creatures that died, ect The problem is, I want the characters to be able to buy more battle slots and bring more into battle at a time. So, say they know can bring 5 creatures in, I don't want to have to make a bunch of new columns. Using XML this exercise would be pretty easy since you can just add a couple extra tags here and there whenever you want. Like:

12
<Creature>
<ID>12</ID>
</Creature>
<Creature>
<ID>12</ID>
</Creature>

I've done lots of work with SQL before but never come across doing something like this with variable amounts of data column wise... Any help would be awesome! Thanks ahead of time.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

Look at the documentation first, then come ask questions. DOCUMENTATION[^] Looks like OnSelectedItemChanged or OnSelectedValueChanged should work quite well for you.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

It is actually entirely possible to do what you are trying to do. Most large companies do not host the database and the web server on the same physical server. It is best practice to have them at the same location so they can be on the fastest possible network however. First make sure you have a static IP Address where you wish to host your SQL server (you can also look at a dynamic IP solution more complex though) Open the port for your chosen SQL software Have you web service connect to the SQL server using the static IP Address from above. I have done this before, several times, and results vary. You almost always want a very fast connection to your database, usually on the same LAN, sometimes it doesn't matter. You'll find out pretty quick.

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo

Javascript is how you do it on the client side. A quick google search will teach you how to reset fields on page load, be careful though, you dont want the script running on postbacks. The slow loading ASP.NET stuff can happen for lots of reason, a slow machine trying to run the site while using Visual Studio, having debuggers attached... ect...

The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo