Search Results

Search found 28 results on 2 pages for 'volunteering'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • Break in Class Module vs. Break on Unhandled Errors (VB6 Error Trapping, Options Setting in IDE)

    - by Erx_VB.NExT.Coder
    Basically, I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Break in Class Module" and "Break on Unhandled Errors" that appear in the Visual Basic 6.0 IDE under the following path: Tools --> Options --> General --> Error Trapping The three options appear to be: Break on All Errors Break in Class Module Break on Unhandled Errors Now, apparently, according to MSDN, the second option (Break in Class Module) really just means "Break on Unhandled Errors in Class Modules". Also, this option appears to be set by default (ie: I think its set to this out of the box). What I am trying to figure out is, if I have the second option selected, do I get the third option (Break on Unhandled Errors) for free? In that, does it come included by default for all scenarios outside of the Class Module spectrum? To advise, I don't have any Class Modules in my currently active project. I have .bas modules though. Also, is it possible that by Class Mdules they may be referring to normal .bas Modules as well? (this is my second sub-question). Basically, I just want the setting to ensure there won't be any surprises once the exe is released. I want as many errors to display as possible while I am developing, and non to be displayed when in release mode. Normally, I have two types of On Error Resume Next on my forms where there isn't explicit error handling, they are as follows: On Error Resume Next ' REQUIRED On Error Resume Next ' NOT REQUIRED The required ones are things like, checking to see if an array has any length, if a call to its UBound errors out, that means it has no length, if it returns a value 0 or more, then it does have length (and therefore, exists). These types of Error Statements need to remain active even while I am developing. However, the NOT REQUIRED ones shouldn't remain active while I am developing, so I have them all commented out to ensure that I catch all the errors that exist. Once I am ready to release the exe, I do a CTRL+H to find all occurrences of: 'On Error Resume Next ' NOT REQUIRED (You may have noticed they are commented out)... And replace them with: On Error Resume Next ' NOT REQUIRED ... The uncommented version, so that in release mode, if there are any leftover errors, they do not show to users. For more on the description by MSDN on the three options (which I've read twice and still don't find adequate) you can visit the following link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yUQZZK2n2IYJ:support.microsoft.com/kb/129876&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_tr&gl=au&tbs=lr:lang_1en%7Clang_1tr&prmd=imvns&strip=1 I’m also interested in hearing your thoughts if you feel like volunteering them (and this would be my tentative/totally optional third sub-question, that being, your thoughts on fall-back error handling techniques). Just to summarize, the first two questions were, do we get option 3 included in all non-class scenarios if we choose option 2? And, is it possible that when they use the term "Class Module" they may be referring to .bas Modules as well? (Since a .bad Module is really just a class module that is pre-instantiated in the background during start-up). Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Where'd My Data Go? (and/or...How Do I Get Rid of It?)

    - by David Paquette
    Want to get a better idea of how cascade deletes work in Entity Framework Code First scenarios? Want to see it in action? Stick with us as we quickly demystify what happens when you tell your data context to nuke a parent entity. This post is authored by Calgary .NET User Group Leader David Paquette with help from Microsoft MVP in Asp.Net James Chambers. We got to spend a great week back in March at Prairie Dev Con West, chalk full of sessions, presentations, workshops, conversations and, of course, questions.  One of the questions that came up during my session: "How does Entity Framework Code First deal with cascading deletes?". James and I had different thoughts on what the default was, if it was different from SQL server, if it was the same as EF proper and if there was a way to override whatever the default was.  So we built a set of examples and figured out that the answer is simple: it depends.  (Download Samples) Consider the example of a hockey league. You have several different entities in the league including games, teams that play the games and players that make up the teams. Each team also has a mascot.  If you delete a team, we need a couple of things to happen: The team, games and mascot will be deleted, and The players for that team will remain in the league (and therefore the database) but they should no longer be assigned to a team. So, let's make this start to come together with a look at the default behaviour in SQL when using an EDMX-driven project. The Reference – Understanding EF's Behaviour with an EDMX/DB First Approach First up let’s take a look at the DB first approach.  In the database, we defined 4 tables: Teams, Players, Mascots, and Games.  We also defined 4 foreign keys as follows: Players.Team_Id (NULL) –> Teams.Id Mascots.Id (NOT NULL) –> Teams.Id (ON DELETE CASCADE) Games.HomeTeam_Id (NOT NULL) –> Teams.Id Games.AwayTeam_Id (NOT NULL) –> Teams.Id Note that by specifying ON DELETE CASCADE for the Mascots –> Teams foreign key, the database will automatically delete the team’s mascot when the team is deleted.  While we want the same behaviour for the Games –> Teams foreign keys, it is not possible to accomplish this using ON DELETE CASCADE in SQL Server.  Specifying a ON DELETE CASCADE on these foreign keys would cause a circular reference error: The series of cascading referential actions triggered by a single DELETE or UPDATE must form a tree that contains no circular references. No table can appear more than one time in the list of all cascading referential actions that result from the DELETE or UPDATE – MSDN When we create an entity data model from the above database, we get the following:   In order to get the Games to be deleted when the Team is deleted, we need to specify End1 OnDelete action of Cascade for the HomeGames and AwayGames associations.   Now, we have an Entity Data Model that accomplishes what we set out to do.  One caveat here is that Entity Framework will only properly handle the cascading delete when the the players and games for the team have been loaded into memory.  For a more detailed look at Cascade Delete in EF Database First, take a look at this blog post by Alex James.   Building The Same Sample with EF Code First Next, we're going to build up the model with the code first approach.  EF Code First is defined on the Ado.Net team blog as such: Code First allows you to define your model using C# or VB.Net classes, optionally additional configuration can be performed using attributes on your classes and properties or by using a Fluent API. Your model can be used to generate a database schema or to map to an existing database. Entity Framework Code First follows some conventions to determine when to cascade delete on a relationship.  More details can be found on MSDN: If a foreign key on the dependent entity is not nullable, then Code First sets cascade delete on the relationship. If a foreign key on the dependent entity is nullable, Code First does not set cascade delete on the relationship, and when the principal is deleted the foreign key will be set to null. The multiplicity and cascade delete behavior detected by convention can be overridden by using the fluent API. For more information, see Configuring Relationships with Fluent API (Code First). Our DbContext consists of 4 DbSets: public DbSet<Team> Teams { get; set; } public DbSet<Player> Players { get; set; } public DbSet<Mascot> Mascots { get; set; } public DbSet<Game> Games { get; set; } When we set the Mascot –> Team relationship to required, Entity Framework will automatically delete the Mascot when the Team is deleted.  This can be done either using the [Required] data annotation attribute, or by overriding the OnModelCreating method of your DbContext and using the fluent API. Data Annotations: public class Mascot { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } [Required] public virtual Team Team { get; set; } } Fluent API: protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder) { modelBuilder.Entity<Mascot>().HasRequired(m => m.Team); } The Player –> Team relationship is automatically handled by the Code First conventions. When a Team is deleted, the Team property for all the players on that team will be set to null.  No additional configuration is required, however all the Player entities must be loaded into memory for the cascading to work properly. The Game –> Team relationship causes some grief in our Code First example.  If we try setting the HomeTeam and AwayTeam relationships to required, Entity Framework will attempt to set On Cascade Delete for the HomeTeam and AwayTeam foreign keys when creating the database tables.  As we saw in the database first example, this causes a circular reference error and throws the following SqlException: Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_Games_Teams_AwayTeam_Id' on table 'Games' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Could not create constraint. To solve this problem, we need to disable the default cascade delete behaviour using the fluent API: protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder) { modelBuilder.Entity<Mascot>().HasRequired(m => m.Team); modelBuilder.Entity<Team>() .HasMany(t => t.HomeGames) .WithRequired(g => g.HomeTeam) .WillCascadeOnDelete(false); modelBuilder.Entity<Team>() .HasMany(t => t.AwayGames) .WithRequired(g => g.AwayTeam) .WillCascadeOnDelete(false); base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder); } Unfortunately, this means we need to manually manage the cascade delete behaviour.  When a Team is deleted, we need to manually delete all the home and away Games for that Team. foreach (Game awayGame in jets.AwayGames.ToArray()) { entities.Games.Remove(awayGame); } foreach (Game homeGame in homeGames) { entities.Games.Remove(homeGame); } entities.Teams.Remove(jets); entities.SaveChanges();   Overriding the Defaults – When and How To As you have seen, the default behaviour of Entity Framework Code First can be overridden using the fluent API.  This can be done by overriding the OnModelCreating method of your DbContext, or by creating separate model override files for each entity.  More information is available on MSDN.   Going Further These were simple examples but they helped us illustrate a couple of points. First of all, we were able to demonstrate the default behaviour of Entity Framework when dealing with cascading deletes, specifically how entity relationships affect the outcome. Secondly, we showed you how to modify the code and control the behaviour to get the outcome you're looking for. Finally, we showed you how easy it is to explore this kind of thing, and we're hoping that you get a chance to experiment even further. For example, did you know that: Entity Framework Code First also works seamlessly with SQL Azure (MSDN) Database creation defaults can be overridden using a variety of IDatabaseInitializers  (Understanding Database Initializers) You can use Code Based migrations to manage database upgrades as your model continues to evolve (MSDN) Next Steps There's no time like the present to start the learning, so here's what you need to do: Get up-to-date in Visual Studio 2010 (VS2010 | SP1) or Visual Studio 2012 (VS2012) Build yourself a project to try these concepts out (or download the sample project) Get into the community and ask questions! There are a ton of great resources out there and community members willing to help you out (like these two guys!). Good luck! About the Authors David Paquette works as a lead developer at P2 Energy Solutions in Calgary, Alberta where he builds commercial software products for the energy industry.  Outside of work, David enjoys outdoor camping, fishing, and skiing. David is also active in the software community giving presentations both locally and at conferences. David also serves as the President of Calgary .Net User Group. James Chambers crafts software awesomeness with an incredible team at LogiSense Corp, based in Cambridge, Ontario. A husband, father and humanitarian, he is currently residing in the province of Manitoba where he resists the urge to cheer for the Jets and maintains he allegiance to the Calgary Flames. When he's not active with the family, outdoors or volunteering, you can find James speaking at conferences and user groups across the country about web development and related technologies.

    Read the article

  • The Changing Face of PASS

    - by Bill Graziano
    I’m starting my sixth year on the PASS Board.  I served two years as the Program Director, two years as the Vice-President of Marketing and I’m starting my second year as the Executive Vice-President of Finance.  There’s a pretty good chance that if PASS has done something you don’t like or is doing something you don’t like, that I’m involved in one way or another. Andy Leonard asked in a comment on his blog if the Board had ever reversed itself based on community input.  He asserted that it hadn’t.  I disagree.  I’m not going to try and list all the changes we make inside portfolios based on feedback from and meetings with the community.  I’m going to focus on major governance issues since I was elected to the Board. Management Company The first big change was our management company.  Our old management company had a standard approach to running a non-profit.  It worked well when PASS was launched.  Having a ready-made structure and process to run the organization enabled the organization to grow quickly.  As time went on we were limited in some of the things we wanted to do.  The more involved you were with PASS, the more you saw these limitations.  Key volunteers were regularly providing feedback that they wanted certain changes that were difficult for us to accomplish.  The Board at that time wanted changes that were difficult or impossible to accomplish under that structure. This was not a simple change.  Imagine a $2.5 million dollar company letting all its employees go on a Friday and starting with a new staff on Monday.  We also had a very narrow window to accomplish that so that we wouldn’t affect the Summit – our only source of revenue.  We spent the year after the change rebuilding processes and putting on the Summit in Denver.  That’s a concrete example of a huge change that PASS made to better serve its members.  And it was a change that many in the community were telling us we needed to make. Financials We heard regularly from our members that they wanted our financials posted.  Today on our web site you can find audited financials going back to 2004.  We publish our budget at the start of each year.  If you ask a question about the financials on the PASS site I do my best to answer it.  I’m also trying to do a better job answering financial questions posted in other locations.  (And yes, I know I owe a few of you some blog posts.) That’s another concrete example of a change that our members asked for that the Board agreed was a good decision. Minutes When I started on the Board the meeting minutes were very limited.  The minutes from a two day Board meeting might fit on one page.  I think we did the bare minimum we were legally required to do.  Today Board meeting minutes run from 5 to 12 pages and go into incredible detail on what we talk about.  There are certain topics that are NDA but where possible we try to list the topic we discussed but that the actual discussion was under NDA.  We also publish the agenda of Board meetings ahead of time. This is another specific example where input from the community influenced the decision.  It was certainly easier to have limited minutes but I think the extra effort helps our members understand what’s going on. Board Q&A At the 2009 Summit the Board held its first public Q&A with our members.  We’d always been available individually to answer questions.  There’s a benefit to getting us all in one room and asking the really hard questions to watch us squirm.  We learn what questions we don’t have good answers for.  We get to see how many people in the crowd look interested in the various questions and answers. I don’t recall the genesis of how this came about.  I’m fairly certain there was some community pressure though. Board Votes Until last November, the Board only reported the vote totals and not how individual Board members voted.  That was one of the topics at a great lunch I had with Tim Mitchell and Kendal van Dyke at the Summit.  That was also the topic of the first question asked at the Board Q&A by Kendal.  Kendal expressed his opposition to to anonymous votes clearly and passionately and without trying to paint anyone into a corner.  Less than 24 hours later the PASS Board voted to make individual votes public unless the topic was under NDA.  That’s another area where the Board decided to change based on feedback from our members. Summit Location While this isn’t actually a governance issue it is one of the more public decisions we make that has taken some public criticism.  There is a significant portion of our members that want the Summit near them.  There is a significant portion of our members that like the Summit in Seattle.  There is a significant portion of our members that think it should move around the country.  I was one that felt strongly that there were significant, tangible benefits to our attendees to being in Seattle every year.  I’m also one that has been swayed by some very compelling arguments that we need to have at least one outside Seattle and then revisit the decision.  I can’t tell you how the Board will vote but I know the opinion of our members weighs heavily on the decision. Elections And that brings us to the grand-daddy of all governance issues.  My thesis for this blog post is that the PASS Board has implemented policy changes in response to member feedback.  It isn’t to defend or criticize our election process.  It’s just to say that is has been under going continuous change since I’ve been on the Board.  I ran for the Board in the fall of 2005.  I don’t know much about what happened before then.  I was actively volunteering for PASS for four years prior to that as a chapter leader and on the program committee.  I don’t recall any complaints about elections but that doesn’t mean they didn’t occur.  The questions from the Nominating Committee (NomCom) were trivial and the selection process rudimentary (For example, “Tell us about your accomplishments”).  I don’t even remember who I ran against or how many other people ran.  I ran for the VP of Marketing in the fall of 2007.  I don’t recall any significant changes the Board made in the election process for that election.  I think a lot of the changes in 2007 came from us asking the management company to work on the election process.  I was expecting a similar set of puff ball questions from my previous election.  Boy, was I in for a shock.  The NomCom had found a much better set of questions and really made the interview portion difficult.  The questions were much more behavioral in nature.  I’d already written about my vision for PASS and my goals.  They wanted to know how I handled adversity, how I handled criticism, how I handled conflict, how I handled troublesome volunteers, how I motivated people and how I responded to motivation. And many, many other things. They grilled me for over an hour.  I’ve done a fair bit of technical sales in my time.  I feel I speak well under pressure addressing pointed questions.  This interview intentionally put me under pressure.  In addition to wanting to know about my interpersonal skills, my work experience, my volunteer experience and my supervisory experience they wanted to see how I’d do under pressure.  They wanted to see who would respond under pressure and who wouldn’t.  It was a bit of a shock. That was the first big change I remember in the election process.  I know there were other improvements around the process but none of them stick in my mind quite like the unexpected hour-long grilling. The next big change I remember was after the 2009 elections.  Andy Warren was unhappy with the election process and wanted to make some changes.  He worked with Hannes at HQ and they came up with a better set of processes.  I think Andy moved PASS in the right direction.  Nonetheless, after the 2010 election even more people were very publicly clamoring for changes to our election process.  In August of 2010 we had a choice to make.  There were numerous bloggers criticizing the Board and our upcoming election.  The easy change would be to announce that we were changing the process in a way that would satisfy our critics.  I believe that a knee-jerk response to criticism is seldom correct. Instead the Board spent August and September and October and November listening to the community.  I visited two SQLSaturdays and asked questions of everyone I could.  I attended chapter meetings and asked questions of as many people as they’d let me.  At Summit I made it a point to introduce myself to strangers and ask them about the election.  At every breakfast I’d sit down at a table full of strangers and ask about the election.  I’m happy to say that I left most tables arguing about the election.  Most days I managed to get 2 or 3 breakfasts in. I spent less time talking to people that had already written about the election.  They were already expressing their opinion.  I wanted to talk to people that hadn’t spoken up.  I wanted to know what the silent majority thought.  The Board all attended the Q&A session where our members expressed their concerns about a variety of issues including the election. The PASS Board also chose to create the Election Review Committee.  We wanted people from the community that had been involved with PASS to look at our election process with fresh eyes while listening to what the community had to say and give us some advice on how we could improve the process.  I’m a part of this as is Andy Warren.  None of the other members are on the Board.  I’ve sat in numerous calls and interviews with this group and attended an open meeting at the Summit.  We asked anyone that wanted to discuss the election to come speak with us.  The ERC held an open meeting at the Summit and invited anyone to attend.  There are forums on the ERC web site where we’ve invited people to participate.  The ERC has reached to key people involved in recent elections.  The years that I haven’t mentioned also saw minor improvements in the election process.  Off the top of my head I don’t recall what exact changes were made each year.  Specifically since the 2010 election we’ve gone out of our way to seek input from the community about the process.  I’m not sure what more we could have done to invite feedback from the community. I think to say that we haven’t “fixed” the election process isn’t a fair criticism at this time.  We haven’t rushed any changes through the process.  If you don’t see any changes in our election process in July or August then I think it’s fair to criticize us for ignoring the community or ask for an explanation for what we’ve done. In Summary Andy’s main point was that the PASS Board hasn’t changed in response to our members wishes.  I think I’ve shown that time and time again the PASS Board has changed in response to what our members want.  There are only two outstanding issues: Summit location and elections.  The 2013 Summit location hasn’t been decided yet.  Our work on the elections is also in progress.  And at every step in the election review we’ve gone out of our way to listen to the community and incorporate their feedback on the process. I also hope I’m not encouraging everyone that wants some change in the organization to organize a “blog rush” against the Board.  We take public suggestions very seriously but we also take the time to evaluate those suggestions and learn what the rest of our members think and make a measured decision.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2