[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting

Testing success of Activator.GetObject...

Robert Conde

7/14/2004 1:52:00 PM

Hi All,
I was wondering if there was a good way to test if
Activator.GetObject succeeded. If it fails it doesn't throw an
exception. Also, it returns an interface pointer when it fails. It
only throws an exception when you try to execute a method. So what
I've been doing is trying to execute a Test() empty method to see if
it was successful - but it seems to be a weird way to go about it. Any
thoughts?

Rob Conde
5 Answers

Sunny

7/14/2004 2:27:00 PM

0

Hi,
this is the only way. Activator.GetObject does not make a connection, it
just creates the proxy. The connection is made upon the first method
call.

Sunny

In article <fdeaf0d8qv9r86tgg8gv50pa958gv2hlfi@4ax.com>, jaha@tmbg.org
says...
> Hi All,
> I was wondering if there was a good way to test if
> Activator.GetObject succeeded. If it fails it doesn''t throw an
> exception. Also, it returns an interface pointer when it fails. It
> only throws an exception when you try to execute a method. So what
> I''ve been doing is trying to execute a Test() empty method to see if
> it was successful - but it seems to be a weird way to go about it. Any
> thoughts?
>
> Rob Conde
>

gumboman

5/4/2008 11:54:00 PM

0

On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:31:28 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:

>gumboman wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:14:41 GMT, "PatsSox" <PatsSox@NErawks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "gumboman" <gumbo@gumbo.com> wrote in message
>>>> If the delegates won't get seated then they're irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> In direct contests where both followed the rules more voters HAVE NOT
>>>> voted for Hillary. Get over it.
>>>
>>> But the delegates will be seated..... it's just a matter of how they
>>> go about doing it. There's no way in hell the Dems are going to willingly
>>> piss those folks in FL and MI off by not seating them! And as far as
>>> following the rules.... Obama ran ads in Florida and Hillary did not. She
>>> followed the rules and he did not. She went to FL for a couple of
>>> fundraisers but did not campaign there. No one told them they HAD to
>>> take their names off the MI ballot..... some did... she didn't. No rules
>>> were broken there.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If they are seated it's likely to be a 50 - 50 split (or something
>> close to that) which does Hillary no good since she is already behind.
>> The convention is not going to seat those delegates in such a way that
>> it helps Hillary get the nomination.
>
>Why should Obama get 50% of those delegates when he lost both states?
>


Why should Hillary get any of them when it was known before the
primaries started they weren't going to count?


>>
>> Obama ran national cable ads. Of course they ran in Florida. It's
>> still part of the nation isn't it?
>
>It's still breaking his pledge, isn't it?


How many cable comapnies does Obama own? Do you think they make
special rules for him?


>
>>
>> See what I mean by flawed strategy? For Hillary to win everything has
>> to be 'perfect'. It's not going to happen. If all these superdelegates
>> were going to come out for Hillary they would have already done so
>> (and she would have encouraged them to do so) in order to help her out
>> here at the end.
>
>Or you could argue that if they were going to come out for Obama, they
>would have already. Those that haven't are waiting for the end of the
>primaries to see if there is a clear winner. Since there won't be, they
>will be free to choose the candidate who can win, and that means Hillary.
>


According to you .................



JH

gumboman

5/4/2008 11:56:00 PM

0

On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:25:28 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:

>gumboman wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 22:27:23 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> gumboman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 11:48:57 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If at the end, she has had more people vote for her, I'd say she IS the
>>>>> one who believes in the values of the majority of the Democratic Party.
>>>>> Although what clearly matters is which candidate can win the general,
>>>>> and it is clear that only she can.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that more people haven't voted for her.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JH
>>>>
>>> At the end, dear...
>>>
>>> Laurie
>>
>>
>> She's not going to have more at the end either despite your optimism.
>>
>>
>>
>> JH'
>
>Including FL votes, yes she will. There is no justification for
>excluding FL votes in the popular vote, despite their delegates not
>being seated. And despite the fact that Obama broke his pledge to not
>campaign by airing TV ads there.
>



According to you. Most people don't feel that way appparently or they
would already be counted.


JH

Evolution

5/5/2008 3:51:00 PM

0

gumboman wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:41:48 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> gumboman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:10:49 GMT, "PatsSox" <PatsSox@NErawks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Oh pooh. You changed the boundaries of the argument on me!!
>>>> Ok, more people have cast votes that were counted for Obama.... but more
>>>> people actually cast votes for Hillary.
>>> No I didn't. You're counting votes that are irrelevant. Why should I
>>> have to mention that at all?
>> The votes aren't irrelevant; the *delegates* are not officially counted.
>> The only reason the votes count at all, is IF the supers want to vote
>> the way most Americans chose.
>
> You mean the way YOU want them to vote.
>
>
>> They aren't obliged to, but why on earth
>> would they not include Florida if they are looking at the popular vote
>> as an indication of the people's will?
>
> A primary is not an indication of 'the people's will'. That's why some
> states have open primaries, some closed, some caucuses. 'The people'
> get to vote in November.

I agree. The supers are neither obligated to vote for the people's will
nor the delegate who has a slight lead in delegates. But the Obama
camp's whole strategy is to get people and supers to think that they
can't vote against the people's will expressed by whomever is ahead in
pledged delegates. It's a nonsensical argument. I'm saying *IF* the
supers want to go by the people's will, the popular vote is a better
indication of that, because delegates are awarded unproportionally to
the vote... i.e. a candidate can get from 50% to 100% of the delegates
in a district with 51% of the vote.

>>>
>>> It's simply time for the Democratic Party to move on beyond the
>>> Clinton's and their flawed industrial state (for lack of a better
>>> term) strategy.
>> Not even Dean suggests a 50 state strategy for the presidential
>> election; he was talking about Congress, building the party from the
>> ground up in all 50 states. He never suggested that UNTIL that
>> happened, we should try a presidential campaign in all 50 states.
>> That's just absurd. From Wikipedia:
>>
>
>
> Can't any fool with an agenda and a computer edit anything they want
> in Wiki? What's the point of quoting them?

I used to think that, and would always find other sources to back them
up. But they check any entries, and people will offer contrasting
opinions, and I've found it to be a decent source, erring on the neutral
side by omitting anything controversial in many cases.

However, here is another source:
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state...

The Democratic Party is committed to winning elections at every level in
every region of the country, and we're getting started right now with a
massive effort to fund organizers on the ground in every state.

The ultimate goal? An active, effective group of Democrats organized in
every single precinct in the country. Here's what we're doing to get there:


It's a good plan. Build the party from the ground up, NOT the top down.
The presidency is still a state-by-state electoral hunt, and red
states are NOT going to turn blue for Obama.

Laurie

>
>
>
> JH

Evolution

5/5/2008 3:55:00 PM

0

gumboman wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:31:28 -0700, Evolution <myname@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> gumboman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 May 2008 14:14:41 GMT, "PatsSox" <PatsSox@NErawks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "gumboman" <gumbo@gumbo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> If the delegates won't get seated then they're irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> In direct contests where both followed the rules more voters HAVE NOT
>>>>> voted for Hillary. Get over it.
>>>> But the delegates will be seated..... it's just a matter of how they
>>>> go about doing it. There's no way in hell the Dems are going to willingly
>>>> piss those folks in FL and MI off by not seating them! And as far as
>>>> following the rules.... Obama ran ads in Florida and Hillary did not. She
>>>> followed the rules and he did not. She went to FL for a couple of
>>>> fundraisers but did not campaign there. No one told them they HAD to
>>>> take their names off the MI ballot..... some did... she didn't. No rules
>>>> were broken there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If they are seated it's likely to be a 50 - 50 split (or something
>>> close to that) which does Hillary no good since she is already behind.
>>> The convention is not going to seat those delegates in such a way that
>>> it helps Hillary get the nomination.
>> Why should Obama get 50% of those delegates when he lost both states?
>>
>
>
> Why should Hillary get any of them when it was known before the
> primaries started they weren't going to count?

The delegates weren't going to be seated. They were duly elected and
the primary was valid in Florida. No one ever said their votes didn't
count.
>
>
>>> Obama ran national cable ads. Of course they ran in Florida. It's
>>> still part of the nation isn't it?
>> It's still breaking his pledge, isn't it?
>
>
> How many cable comapnies does Obama own? Do you think they make
> special rules for him?

It was a way to get around the rules, plain and simple. How many
national cable ad buys has he bought since?

>
>
>>> See what I mean by flawed strategy? For Hillary to win everything has
>>> to be 'perfect'. It's not going to happen. If all these superdelegates
>>> were going to come out for Hillary they would have already done so
>>> (and she would have encouraged them to do so) in order to help her out
>>> here at the end.
>> Or you could argue that if they were going to come out for Obama, they
>> would have already. Those that haven't are waiting for the end of the
>> primaries to see if there is a clear winner. Since there won't be, they
>> will be free to choose the candidate who can win, and that means Hillary.
>>
>
>
> According to you .................

Hmmm, still waiting for that electoral scenario whereby he can win...
>
>
>
> JH