Matevž Gačnik's Weblog

Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate, $499.

Apple iPhone, $599.

Jobs and Gates sitting together. Priceless.

Nick is continuing my discussion on durable messaging support in modern WS-* based stacks, especially WCF.

I agree that having a simple channel configuration support to direct messages into permanent information source (like SQL) would be beneficial.

A simple idea that begs for an alternative implementation of a WCF extensibility point, has some questions:

• What happens when messages are (or should be) exchanged in terms of a transaction context?
• How can we demand transaction support from the underlying datastore, if we don't want to put limitations onto anything residing beind the service boundary?
• What about security contexts? How can we acknowledge a secure, durable sessionful channel after two weeks of service hibernation down time? Should security keys still be valid just because service was down and not responding all this time?
• Is durability limited to client/service recycling or non-memory message storage? What about both?

Is [DurableService]enough?

Having posted a disturbing post last year, I have a moral obligation to repost my current state of mind.

This year's NT conference was way better, especially regarding fun-activating activities. It's not my cup of tea, when things are being cut, but I was impressed by the plethora of activities that were not present this year.

Yeah, I know. When you've got activities that are not present, you're in it deep.

Clarifying it, here it goes.

I like it when things are not there (regarding fun during the NT conference).

• I like the fact that sponsors and partners were not given a carte blache.
• I like the fact that there were no naked ladies running around. Doh!
• I like the fact that I like the fact that there were no naked ladies running around.
• I like the fact that there was not enough free beer.
• I like the fact that parties were not too 'lomaniac.
• I like the fact that we, speakers, were pressured again.
• I like the fact that, above all, this was a step forward.

What I don't I like (in 2007 incarnation):

• I don't like keynotes that have (almost, sorry) no content.
• I don't like keynotes that have no cues, allowing people to leave with no impression.
• I especially don't like keynotes that, having a plethora of technology to show, don't make attendees drool their asses off.
• I don't like 30 minute breaks. Sorry, too long.
• I don't like that attendees have no free evenings. It's just to reflect on what they've heard.

And, as stated previously (and again) I don't like parties happening every evening on a technical conference. But that might just be the rule I have.

If NTK continues in this year's fashion, we all did a good job. If only next year, they would get some pre/post conference options (hint) for the technical savvy.

Luke, Kamenko, this is a major contribution to being on the right track again. Kudos.

[This post can and probably will, position me into the nerd crowd. It is not my intention. For you, who know me personally, you know what I'm talking about. At a certain point of fun, everybody has enough.]

Jamie Cansdale of TestDriven.NET fame just posted an intro post describing the hosting of Silverlight's CLR - CoreCLR.

Having the ability to host the runtime inside a Win32/.NET process brings up new possibilities, especially running Silverlight apps outside the browser or developing test harnesses/unit tests for Silverlight intended object models.

Silverlight 1.1 alpha and CoreCLR currently expose a very trimmed down version of the Framework's BCL. This will change by RTM, but be aware that its sweet spot is still the browser.

I can imagine a world where Silverlight apps will not only be media/presentation related. Currently, the competing platform, though having a strong install base, has not reached into that space.

You could arm Flash developers with rocket launchers, but they would still lose a battle war against .NET developers armed with chopsticks. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I believe the number of souls will significantly influence the outcome in this case.

Today, Microsoft.com put a Silverlight enabled video of XBox 360 Elite on the site front page.

This must be one of the earliest technology adoptions for Microsoft.com. They host a 1.0 beta version of the Silverlight app and it got me thinking why would a high traffic site want to do this.

My conclusion?

Answer this: What's the quickest way to install the Silverlight runtime to a broad user base without using a ship vehicle?

Admittedly, installing the runtime is quick, painless and benign for your machine. As it should be.

Try it out. Then visit some sample galleries.

It's the time of the year again when the biggest local show gets going.

This year, I'm going to deliver three talks:

Tuesday, 15.5.2007, 18:00, Room D, WCF+Workflow: Et tu, Orcas?

Drilldown of: WCF support for syndication, POX, JSON, WCF + WF integration and WF instance correlation support.

Wednesday, 16.5.2007, 09:00, Emerald 1, MythBusters: Fat Clients and Thin Servers (with Dušan)

Drilldown of: Will not disclose. Stop by (if you dare). :)

Wednesday, 16.5.2007, 15:00, Emerald 2, WCF: About Messaging Sessions

Drilldown of: WCF messaging sessions, what they are, how to handle them, what's the underlying story.

Also, if you are a journalist, stop by for a press conference on Tuesday, 15.5.2007 at 12⁰⁰ in the Press Center. Together with a client, we have a discussion on digital document archives, legislature and best practices.

Well, it took me awhile to figure out, but here's a way to bring back the dialog which allows you to resize image attachments you send in Outlook 2007.

It's hidden the behind right arrow of the Include box. Right here:

I knew it must be there somewhere. And it is, it's just a click away.

It must be me, but I was looking for this option for a couple of months. It was one of my beloved features in Outlook 2003, since sending snapshots of something allowed me to get them down from 5MB to 100kb by just clicking an option.

There is a special checkbox called 'Show when attaching files' there.

Turn it on. Now.

Who decided it's a good thing to leave this thing off by default?