Reputation
1,097
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
6 15
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~60k people reached

Jan
28
accepted Preparing to remove a tightly coupled service provider out of source code
Jan
27
reviewed Approve Preparing to remove a tightly coupled service provider out of source code
Jan
27
comment Preparing to remove a tightly coupled service provider out of source code
It's an Asp.Net/C# project, on windows. Also it has a very complicated inheritance as well, so I have to look for method calls in child classes as well. So can't easily go for this, but thanks for the input.
Jan
27
comment Preparing to remove a tightly coupled service provider out of source code
I appreciate if anyone has any comments in order to improve the quality of the question.
Jan
27
asked Preparing to remove a tightly coupled service provider out of source code
Dec
3
accepted One C codebase as an standalone application as well as Fast-CGI and Apache module
Dec
2
comment One C codebase as an standalone application as well as Fast-CGI and Apache module
Would this make the installation harder for the user, perhaps by requiring extra steps to set it properly? Besides that, my main argument could be that it will make the initialisation slightly slower -- specially in the Fast-CGI configuration, and perhaps there aren't any need for having it as a dynamic library rather static library, or are there? Would it save my development time if I go for a dynamic library?
Dec
2
asked One C codebase as an standalone application as well as Fast-CGI and Apache module
Nov
27
revised How can I estimate the lifespan of a line of code?
added 4 characters in body
Nov
27
answered How can I estimate the lifespan of a line of code?
Oct
6
awarded  Yearling
Aug
21
accepted Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
Aug
21
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
@BenAaronson by blame I mean throwing an exception and let the developer fix the problem -- in case of wrong data type assignment for example.
Aug
21
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
That make much more sense now. thanks for the example.
Aug
20
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
@JBKing ah, I see what you mean. That's actually a legit reason in a way that it could have been designed in this way for the sake of backward compatibility with asp classic -- asp.net and asp classic are able to share session information, if I recall correctly.
Aug
20
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
Also, one thing that is bugging me a bit is why would you need to assign an integer value to session variable once, but then assign a string to it? I know that many developers are using it, but I can't think of any practical example that you might want anything like this.
Aug
20
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
Also could you please give an example of some of these modules "Remember that session is effectively shared between all modules used in creating the page. Some of these may not be known at compile time."
Aug
20
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
okay, now it makes more sense. but shouldn't it be blamed on the developer due to the improper use of session variables? (if we assume they are typed)
Aug
20
comment Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
@EricKing Thanks for the input. Is there any good learning material you can recommend for writing the wrapper? I have already getter/setters for my session variables (which I'm not sure if it is an anti-pattern/code-smell or not) but will be great to see how an experienced Asp.net developer would create the session wrapper.
Aug
20
revised Why Session has implemented this way in Asp.net
deleted 1 character in body