Eric De C#

I love this article. Thank you so much for posting...

2012-02-09T20:30:18.626-05:00

I love this article. Thank you so much for posting :)

Amazing post! Thanks a lot for it.

2012-02-06T11:22:32.855-05:00

Amazing post! Thanks a lot for it.

. Your article is truly relevant to my study at th...

2012-02-06T09:55:31.505-05:00

. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy I discovered your website.

Very interesting post! Thanks for sharing.

2012-01-31T06:24:48.113-05:00

Very interesting post! Thanks for sharing.

Its a good experience! very nice site and a series...

2011-12-29T02:20:14.484-05:00

Its a good experience! very nice site and a series of useful links here. I had too much information here, thanks to a guy like me just keep it up
interior design

Nice and simple fix to my problem. Thanks for the...

2011-12-13T16:00:25.391-05:00

Nice and simple fix to my problem. Thanks for the info.

hehe very very cool

2011-11-28T10:13:33.624-05:00

hehe very very cool

Eric is correct and his method is the best I have ...

2011-11-09T12:50:19.662-05:00

Eric is correct and his method is the best I have seen so far. I see a lot of people is under the misconception that you can serialize an object to XML with a private parameter-less constructor. I was sincerely hoping that it was me that was wrong but I have tried multiple times with all the different methods available to no avail. Binary serialization don't need a public constructor. XML Serialization for some reason do. ps. This is also when using .NET 2.0. Don't know if this changed in later versions. Feel free to ask for example code if you don't believe me.

2011-11-08T23:51:21.621-05:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Unfortunatly use of expression tree's is very ...

2011-10-18T16:07:08.655-04:00

Unfortunatly use of expression tree's is very time expensive. Here's a solution without the use of expression trees. In the reference post you'll find a performance comparsion. http://tomsundev.wordpress.com/category/articles/update-property-change-notification-without-strings/

---------------- VB.NET version ---------------- ...

2011-09-16T20:06:06.613-04:00

----------------
VB.NET version
----------------

Public Shared Sub Dispatch(Of TSource As DispatcherObject, T1, T2)(ByRef source As TSource, func As Action(Of TSource, T1, T2), param1 As T1, param2 As T2)
If source.Dispatcher.CheckAccess Then func(source, param1, param2)
source.Dispatcher.Invoke(func, source, param1, param2)
End Sub

I heard that sometimes the runtime bypasses the ge...

2011-08-02T02:55:04.186-04:00

I heard that sometimes the runtime bypasses the get’s and the set’s for dependency properties and therefore will skip the logic so it might be better to set it in the propertychanged handler.

good catch!

2011-08-02T02:51:56.964-04:00

good catch!

Thank you for sharing your finding! Saved me some ...

2011-07-22T08:36:26.611-04:00

Thank you for sharing your finding! Saved me some time, too!

Hello! I don't know how in wpf, but in Silverl...

2011-07-19T00:41:55.378-04:00

Hello!
I don't know how in wpf, but in Silverlight 4 the method Dispatcher.CheckAccess() is invisible for Intellisense,

because it has been marked with a [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)] attribute. Probably, Microsoft

doesn't want developers to use Dispatcher.CheckAccess(). Taking into account that all controls, including page, are

created inside the UI thread, inside a page constructor the property Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId is the

required UI thread identifier. We can use this fact it in the next way:
[csharp]
using System;
using Microsoft.Phone.Controls;

namespace WindowsPhoneApplication1
{
public partial class MainPage : PhoneApplicationPage
{
private int _uiThreadID = -1;

private bool IsUIThread
{
get { return _uiThreadID == System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId; }
}

// Constructor
public MainPage()
{
// preserve UI thread id
_uiThreadID = System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId;
InitializeComponent();
}

public void UpdateSomeTextBox(string text)
{
if (IsUIThread) // if it's UI thread, just set the new text directly
someTextBox.Text = text;
else // otherwise, invoke UpdateSomeTextBox in UI thread
Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate()
{
UpdateSomeTextBox(text);
});
}
}
}
[/csharp]
I've described it in details in my post in blog here http://dotnetfollower.com/wordpress/2011/07/silverlight-for-windows-phone-7-how-to-check-if-

the-current-thread-is-ui-one/

Thank you!
.Net Follower (http://dotnetfollower.com)

Superb article. I really expect more from you.

2011-07-03T13:42:57.807-04:00

Superb article. I really expect more from you.

awesome work!

2011-05-10T09:29:25.899-04:00

awesome work!

Thank you very much for these explanations. Using ...

2011-03-15T06:18:22.597-04:00

Thank you very much for these explanations. Using Synclock instead of object itself seems to have partially solved my race conditions problems.
Unfortunately it seems that i still have strange behaviors, especially while making a "Clear" of Dictionary.

OK, but what about user settings? This is fine fo...

2011-03-06T10:23:53.061-05:00

OK, but what about user settings? This is fine for static or installed settings but user settings, apparently, are not shareable without a settings provider.

You might also consider enhancing these methods wi...

2011-03-04T10:19:44.407-05:00

You might also consider enhancing these methods with a DispatcherPriority parameter that can be passed directly on to the Dispatcher.Invoke method.

Unfortunately the Obselete attribute won't act...

2011-02-25T07:14:03.386-05:00

Unfortunately the Obselete attribute won't actually succeed in making the code fool (foul??) proof. Just because a method is obselete doesn't mean you can't call it, nor that it is hidden from the types public interface. It merely means the compiler will generate an error if you try to call it directly. Consider, for example, Acivator.CreateInstance(...).

Hiding methods behind Obsolete and EditorBrowsable attributes is kinda like "security through obscurity". It provides only the most basic level of protection... it certainly isn't fool proof.
Never underestimate the power of a determined idiot!

I believe the first commentator was correct is her/his assertion that you can use a non-public constructor though. There is nothing in the documentation which indicates the default constructor needs to be public (merely that it exists).
I would be interested in seeing an example where having a private does not work, though.

Searching Google for 'password PropertyGrid...

2011-02-25T04:52:15.510-05:00

Searching Google for 'password PropertyGrid' gave me as first result: http://jenswinter.com/post/2005/11/How-to-Passwort-im-PropertyGrid.aspx which is even slightly better than the PasswordPropertyText attribute as it requires you to enter a password verification. It's in German but exmaples are English and Google Translate is your friend...

Best regards, Max

Yes, it would help me especially when lambda funct...

2011-01-24T17:42:02.948-05:00

Yes, it would help me especially when lambda functions are involved. And as far as adding the Action/Func overloads, wouldn't you be able to completely replace all of your current overloads with Action and Func overloads while maintaining all functionality? Some samples of those would be greatly appreciated as well! Thanks.

If you really need sample for those overload, I ca...

2011-01-24T17:02:07.854-05:00

If you really need sample for those overload, I can publish some but I don't think its necessary to understand the concept.

Actually because this API is based on Action<> and Func<> API it would be a good idea to add all Action<> and Func<> overloads. This way you could use this API anywhere you would use Action<> or Func<> definition.

Great approach, Eric. Could you help out with my ...

2011-01-24T16:50:52.151-05:00

Great approach, Eric. Could you help out with my understanding of some of the overloads by posting some additional samples? Specifically, two samples of invoking with one parameter, one returning a result and the other not returning a result. Thanks!