the blog => anything goes - All Comments

London escorts

London escorts — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:08:27 GMT

It is extremely interesting for me to read the blog. Thanks for it. I like such topics and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more on that blog soon.

re: Greasemonkeying around with IRCTC

Karthick — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:41:59 GMT

Dear Senthil:

I am having some doubts in your greasemonkeying-around-with-irctc blog. If you don't mine, can you give me your emailid or mobile no please.

my emailid: karthickreddyk@gmail.com

re: Greasemonkeying around with IRCTC

AQUIL — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:26:06 GMT

Hi Mr kumar,

this in regards some situation that i face while

in the peak season, common error is "service unavailable"

i normally make ticket using quick book option ,which gives me option to feed detail before 8 am

i have some trick to maintain session, and making few changes hitting submit at 8 am 10 seconds and payment gateway takes 10 to 30 seconds to open ,processing of payment takes 25 seconds .some time payment gateways are so much loaded that takes more than 1 minute to open,than all of sudden i get "service unavailable"

so handle this error right click and reload ..

hence again i lose 30 seconds here .eventually

i end up with waiting list ...

here i would like to know how i can speed up the payment process and how i can avoid error "service unavailable".I'm looking ahead to share detail and in process take

info_aaquil@yahoo.co.in

regards Aquil

re: When what you set is not what you get : SetEnvironmentVariable and getenv

Gerald Naveen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:21:03 GMT

Possibly, optimization?. I've rarely had to set an ENV variable from within my application (for use in my own application).

On the other hand, reading an ENV variable is a common act - say for temp folders. So I would choose to cache it if possible. This seems more common than the case we are discussing.

I would also be against this optimization, if there isn't a way around; but given that setenv takes care of it and that the mandate is to, "Not mix up the CRT and Win APIs for ENVs", I'm ready to accept this for the benefit.

Having two CRT in a process itself is strange!! (again, I'm not sure about .net). There are so many other things that will go for a toss if you have two CRTs into the same process -- e.g., file descriptors? heap pointers? huh!!

re: When what you set is not what you get : SetEnvironmentVariable and getenv

Senthil — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:48:48 GMT

Honestly, I was surprised when I found that getenv did not call the Windows API.

I don't see why this is encouraged - in one instance, there were two versions of the CRT in a process, and each of them had its own copy, and the copies were different.

The problem goes away if everyone calls the Windows (or equivalent OS) API, so I'm curious why it isn't recommended.

re: When what you set is not what you get : SetEnvironmentVariable and getenv

Gerald Naveen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:39:01 GMT

I don't belong to .Net, but I'm surprised if there's no equivalent of getenv (ie., setenv) that is available for use?

In the non .net world, it is a paradigm to use only setenv/getenv to set/get Environment vars and not through Win APIs (just for the exact reason that you discovered).

re: Greasemonkeying around with IRCTC

Ramesh — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:26:29 GMT

I used the updated script and now it works :-)

re: Greasemonkeying around with IRCTC

Ramesh — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:29:17 GMT

This used to work, but not now. Can you verify if the script works currently in the current IRCTC portal?

Thanks for the awesome script, BTW.

re: Anonymous methods as event handlers – Part 2

Ashutosh Bhawasinka — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:11:40 GMT

Nice article!

re: Anonymous methods as event handlers – Part 2

Vivek Ragunathan — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:37:32 GMT

Good stuff da. The technique(s) to circumvent the problem is the right way to end the post giving the reader the complete picture of the problem.

Anonymous methods as event handlers – Part 2

the blog => anything goes — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 05:02:28 GMT

The previous post discussed having anonymous methods as event handlers and ended with a question – why

re: Anonymous methods as event handlers – Part 1

Vivek Ragunathan — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:39:51 GMT

A delegate is identified by its target (method, instance\type). In the above case, the delegates returned by IfEnabledThenDo during registrationg\unregistration target methods that belong to two different instances of the compiler generated class (that holds the anonymous delegate method). Hence the delegate instance returned in the line of unregistration does not exist with the event invocation list; in other words the subscribed event handler is not removed.

vivekragunathan.spaces.live.com/.../cns!753E720D857C98F6!533.entry

Remoting IEnumerables

the blog => anything goes — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:49:46 GMT

You're writing this really cool and innovative class to calculate the first hundred thousand natural

re: Volatile and local

Juan Carlos Ruiz Pacheco — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:45:59 GMT

Wow, yes now i see your point.

thanks

re: Overload resolution and null

Thathi Reddy — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:59:03 GMT

Pretty interesting :)

re: Volatile and local

Juan Carlos Ruiz — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:30:50 GMT

Well, as I see your code doesn't need volatile keyword because compiler does't do any optimizations in the thread code.

so whatever you do, use stopping as you use, or put sttoping out of the main method as volatile, doesn't have any effect.

I recommend to you take a look to this article I wrote, is in spanish but you can see the code examples to verify the nature of volatile fields.

juank.black-byte.com/c-explicacion-ejemplo-volatile

take a look to "ejemplo 3" without and with volatile keyword and compare then whith "ejemplo 2".

byte!

re: Overload resolution and null

aryang — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:24:44 GMT

This is really very interesting!

re: Overload resolution and null

aryang — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:23:52 GMT

Thanks，and that's really Interesting!

re: How could this work?

Sam — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:46:01 GMT

So, how can you make it work?

I have Main Form that uses background worker. And it does stuck on bgWorker_DoWork(...) unless I call waitHandle.Set() at the end of bgWorker_DoWork().

But I don't want to do that, I want to call waitHandle.Set() on bgWorker_RunWorkerCompleted()

Is it possible?

Thanks,

Sam

re: Greasemonkeying around with IRCTC

Sreedhar — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:38:32 GMT

Thanks for the nice script

Keep posting