[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting

Re: VB.Net .Net Remoting Citrix

Kris

10/5/2004 9:41:00 AM

Hi All,

Does anybody have an experience with running .NET application on the Citrix
server?

I have a VB.NET application using .NET Remoting and I run it on the Citrix
server. It works perfectly for the very first user and it fails for every
following one.

Any subsequent user receives a native .NET framework error message when
starting the application:



"Application has generated an exception that could not be handled. Process
ID......."

The application event log on the Citrix server contains:

"The description for Event ID ( 26 ) in Source ( Application Popup ) cannot
be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information
or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. The
following information is part of the event: FSRClient.exe - Common Language
Runtime Debugging Services, Application has generated an exception that
could not be handled.

Process id=0x3b4 (948), Thread id=0xe58 (3672).


Click OK to terminate the application.

Click CANCEL to debug the application.."



I suspect an issue might be a registration of objects for .Net Remoting, but
as I do not have a Citrix environment I cannot verify it.

Therefore I am seeking verification and help from you.

Any suggestions welcome.

Many Thanks,

Kris


2 Answers

Phil Carmody

10/24/2009 11:33:00 AM

0

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Oct 22, 1:51??pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>>> Rule of thumb: If a ?: operator can be written equivalently as an
>>> if-else statement, write it as an if-else statement (unless it's
>>> part of a macro definition).
>>
>> I think we'd all agree that "cutesy" shortcuts to achieve a
>> false keystroke economy are wrong, but this statement goes much
>> too far. It seems to assume that "if else" is more readable
>> than "? :" but that should *not* be the case for a C programmer.
>
> I was referring specifically to cases where a ?: operator appears at
> the top level of a statement expression, and the second and third
> operands' results are discarded. For example:
>
> condition ? puts("A message") : puts("Another message");
>
> In my opinion, using ?: here is just silly; it's better written as:
>
> if (condition) {
> puts("A message");
> }
> else {
> puts("Another message");
> }

Better written as:

puts(condition ? "A message" : "Another message");

> or whatever brace style you prefer. In cases like this, the use of
> the ?: operator tells me "I know what the ?: operator is, and you
> should be impressed."

The original ?: example used ?: only for control flow, not for
selection of values. So it doesn't tell me that the author knows
that it has that latter use. The fact they avoided my version
tells me that probably they don't. So we'd both flag the line,
for mostly the same reason, but my terseness pushes me to my
one-liner rather than

>> I often string together ?, : and/or && and || into an involved
>> expression, and add newlines and tabs to make it easy to read.
>> IMHO the if/else equivalent would be harder to read because of
>> all the "if/else" clutter.
>
> Can you give an example? If it doesn't meet the criteria I mentioned
> above, so that the transformation from ?: to if-else is absolutely
> trivial, I probably wouldn't object. I don't find "if" and "else" to
> be clutter; they're just part of the code.

Sometimes they make the function easier to understand as they
clearly and cleanly frame off sections which can be considered
separately. That's not clutter at all.

> (But tabs? Spaces only, please.)

A coding standard which is 100% strict about how wide a tab is
may also approve or demand the use of tabs.

I don't personally care - I press 'tab' in emacs, and it makes
the code conform to the coding standard in effect at the time.

Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1

Phil Carmody

10/25/2009 9:20:00 PM

0

raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> > (But tabs? Spaces only, please.)
>>
>> A coding standard which is 100% strict about how wide a tab is
>> may also approve or demand the use of tabs.
>
> If so, such a coding standard will only work in-house, on a strictly
> controlled set of hardware. It's possible, but it's harder work than a
> coding standard should want to do.

False. Linux's coding standard works across hundreds of companies
and thousands of individuals, who I'm sure use a wider selection
of hardware than found amongst the proponents of any other coding
standard. Yes, it's hard work to police, but there are thousands
of people, and hundreds of robots, policing it.

Phil
--
Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1