Comments on: More .NET Compact Framework Woes http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/ Musings of a software developer in Milwaukee, WI. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:21:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Tim http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/comment-page-1/#comment-11098 Tim Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:46:27 +0000 http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/#comment-11098 Here's an alternative work-around which works now, but is easy to remove if the CF ever serializes generic lists properly: <code> /// /// This property is just a work-around for a bug in CF serialization. Never use it from /// your own code. /// public string[] SerializeResults { get{return _results.ToArray();} set{_results = new List(value);} } [XmlIgnore] public List Results { get{return _results;} set { _results = value; } } </code> Here’s an alternative work-around which works now, but is easy to remove if the CF ever serializes generic lists properly:

        /// 
        /// This property is just a work-around for a bug in CF serialization. Never use it from 
        /// your own code.
        /// 
        public string[] SerializeResults
        {
            get{return _results.ToArray();}
            set{_results = new List(value);}
        }

        [XmlIgnore]
        public List Results
        {
            get{return _results;}
            set { _results = value; }
        }

]]> By: Alex http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/comment-page-1/#comment-11054 Alex Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:10:55 +0000 http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/#comment-11054 Geoff, Running remoting on different platforms using standard MS Remoting is impossible for the simple reason: the serialization will fail. SOAP is so slow that sometimes it is unusable. Also all SOAP based systems are unidirectional. Generally we are talking about very different systems. You are focusing on the XML type systems that are platform neutral but they are useless when you need a performance and duplex. Also everybody is missing the point that XML style communication is a result of inabilty of the software (and hardware) vendors to come to some reasonable binary standard. It is a miracle that they agreed on ASCII code and that enables to use XML based comms now. Geoff,
Running remoting on different platforms using standard MS Remoting is impossible for the simple reason: the serialization will fail. SOAP is so slow that sometimes it is unusable. Also all SOAP based
systems are unidirectional. Generally we are talking about very different systems.
You are focusing on the XML type systems that are platform neutral but they are useless when you need a performance and duplex.
Also everybody is missing the point that XML style communication is a result of inabilty of the software (and hardware) vendors to come to some reasonable binary standard. It is a miracle that they agreed on ASCII code and that enables to use XML based comms now.

]]> By: Geoff Lane http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/comment-page-1/#comment-10988 Geoff Lane Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:46:44 +0000 http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/#comment-10988 Alex, Calling Dotnetremoting platform neutral is a bit of a stretch. If you can run .NET or Mono then you can use .NET Remoting? Different OSes are not different platforms. When you're trying to integrate a .NET CF handheld application with an existing Java service implemented as SOAP (XML), .NET Remoting is pretty useless. Integration is really only an interesting discussion when you don't have control over both the client and the server. If you have control over both, it's usually not a very difficult endeavor. Alex,
Calling Dotnetremoting platform neutral is a bit of a stretch. If you can run .NET or Mono then you can use .NET Remoting? Different OSes are not different platforms. When you’re trying to integrate a .NET CF handheld application with an existing Java service implemented as SOAP (XML), .NET Remoting is pretty useless. Integration is really only an interesting discussion when you don’t have control over both the client and the server. If you have control over both, it’s usually not a very difficult endeavor.

]]> By: alex http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/comment-page-1/#comment-10987 alex Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:56:55 +0000 http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/#comment-10987 The above solution solution does offer some workaround the problem, however generally XMLSerializer is the least useful thing for the object exchange systems. Have a look www.dotnetremoting.com there are some solutions (and some free) The above solution solution does offer some workaround the problem, however
generally XMLSerializer is the least useful thing for the object exchange systems.
Have a look http://www.dotnetremoting.com there are some solutions (and some free)

]]> By: Grant http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/comment-page-1/#comment-8685 Grant Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:25:57 +0000 http://www.zorched.net/2007/02/04/more-net-compact-framework-woes/#comment-8685 Geoff your post raises two points. The first is a question. What was a fundamental design flaw in the C# language implementation that resulted in the manifestation of the error that occurred? The second is a comment. What you've encountered, or more spefically how you had to deal with it, is a development taboo. I will talk to you about that part sometime at work. Geoff your post raises two points.

The first is a question. What was a fundamental design flaw in the C# language implementation that resulted in the manifestation of the error that occurred?

The second is a comment. What you’ve encountered, or more spefically how you had to deal with it, is a development taboo. I will talk to you about that part sometime at work.

]]>