RE: FN-FORUM: .NET & COM

date posted 15th January 2005 19:50

Hi John

Just been catching up on this thread.=20

From what I have read the message queue / separate service is the best =
idea
but does the client have the budget to run to installing Sharepoint =
server.
If you are looking to track document changes, with nice web interface, =
that
will do it, out of the box, no programming, just configuration (although =
you
can do some programming if you want to).

Damon

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED] On Behalf Of John =
Kyle
Sent: 15 January 2005 14:33
To: FN-FORUM / [EMAIL REMOVED]
Subject: Re: FN-FORUM: .NET & COM


Could you not have a service running and dump the request to the message
queue and deal with them one at a time so you would only have one =
instance
of word running rather than gobbling up loads of memory. I guess this =
would
also stop any hanging of the web browser like happens when you are =
trying to
email large attachment files or a large number of emails from the server =
at
once etc.

Best Regards

John

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Andy Macnaughton-Jones" [EMAIL REMOVED]
To: [EMAIL REMOVED]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: .NET & COM



Yes, but the additional instances of the application wouldn't load
additional objects into memory, just the information for them. Unless =
you
specifically loaded the additional librarys into their own distinct =
memory
space for resiliance.

You don't want to store objects against the application or session =
objects -
if it's web-based, it needs to be stateless and that sort of thing leads =
to
all kind of nightmares.

The idea somebody had previously of having a process that runs and polls =
a
queue of "items to process" is a much better idea.

And yes, having a set of office libraries would make a huge deal of =
sense.
But then that'd be too easy wouldn't it ;)

Cheers
Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED] On Behalf Of Hibri
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 12:51 PM
To: Andy Macnaughton-Jones
Subject: Re: FN-FORUM: .NET & COM


it will create an instance for each time Word is instantiated by the =
code
ApplicationClass WordApp =3D new ApplicationClass();

it could be avoided if one ApplicationClass instance is created and =
stored
as in the ASP .Net Application object. this instance could be resued
throughout the application.

just some ideas..

dunno about processor licences though..

I'm not very comfortable with installing Office on a production server.
Why isn't there a set of object libraries for server use ?
Does the sharepoint portal server have something for this ?

Hibri


On 15 Jan 2005 11:52:19 -0000, Andy Macnaughton-Jones [EMAIL REMOVED] =
wrote:
>
> Would it create a memory instance of word each time ? If it was
> instanciated as an object then only the data for the document (and
> associated object data) would be created, the actual application would
> be created once.
>
> Also if it is a public server then you have to purchase a processor
> licence for Word. Not cheap I suspect....
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED] On Behalf Of
> Hibri
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:51 AM
> To: Andy Macnaughton-Jones
> Subject: Re: FN-FORUM: .NET & COM
>
> Since it will run on a webserver, two or more people will be running
> the code at the same time.
> the code will create a memory instance of Word every time the code is
> run.
> the instance should be released from memory once the work is done.
> so you might be seeing one instance of word on the server for each
> user who is accessing the site.
>
> you should consider how many users will access the web page
> concurrently. this factors into how much memory and processing power
> that the web server needs.
>
> the batch task approach is good, since John already has the documents
> in a database.
> depends on how long a user is willing to wait to see the results =
though.
>
> On 15 Jan 2005 10:36:39 -0000, Andy Henderson [EMAIL REMOVED] wrote:
> >
> > >>>I don't have any examples but, the code will be similar to doing
> > >>>it
>
> > >>>on a
> > client machine.
> > Would there be an issue if two people wanted to run the same code
> > simultaneously?
> >
> > FWIW, I would consider running some kind of batch task that would
> > look
>
> > for documents that need to be processed rather than doing it on the
> > fly. That could be a web server task or run somewhere else. But
> > maybe I'm too cautious.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > --
> > Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4 Call 0870 870
> > 4414
>
> > or visit www.prosperity4.com and benefit from Inland Revenue
> > approved expenses today.
> >
> > To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html
> >
> >
> --
> Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4 Call 0870 870 4414
> or visit www.prosperity4.com and benefit from Inland Revenue approved
> expenses today.
>
> To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html
>
> --
> Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4 Call 0870 870 4414
> or visit www.prosperity4.com and benefit from Inland Revenue approved
> expenses today.
>
> To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html
>
>
--
Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4 Call 0870 870 4414 =
or
visit www.prosperity4.com and benefit from Inland Revenue approved =
expenses
today.

To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html


--=20
Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4
Call 0870 870 4414 or visit www.prosperity4.com
and benefit from Inland Revenue approved expenses today.

To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html