I was developing against a web site project -- you know the ones in Visual Studio 2005/2008 where you can just point to a directory and do your thing (as compared to a web application project with an actual project file) -- and I noticed something a bit odd.  When I compiled the project the Error List was not showing file references, line numbers, columns, or any other information about the location of the compiler errors. 

I figured Visual Studio was just getting tired since it had been open for days, so I restarted the application in hopes that it would straighten out.  No such luck.  Then I restarted the computer.  That's what tech support normally recommends anyway, so I figured I'd start with the basics.  Once again, no error location information. 

At this point, I was starting to wonder if it was an issue with Visual Studio 2008 that nobody had noticed yet.  Of course, if VS 2008 wasn't showing error location information on web site projects then there probably would have been an outcry long before this.  So I hit the search engines. 

It was a pain to find, which is why I'm trying to help publicize the issue, but there are a few references to the exact issue I was having.  Specifically on the following sites:

http://www.developmentnow.com/g/51_2006_7_0_0_790825/Errors-in-Error-List-with-no-line-numbers.htm

http://www.dotnetmonster.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/vs-net-ide/4006/Error-List-Missing-the-Code-File-Reference

What was the problem?  I was using parenthesis in the path to the web site project.  After removing the parenthesis, the problem was gone.

I had the code base for my first WPF application ready to go, so I compiled a release version of software and tried to run it from the .exe instead of directly from Visual Studio.  I was promptly greeted with the following error:

The tag 'WindowsFormsHost' does not exist in XML namespace 'http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation'.

It ran flawlessly from the Visual Studio .NET debugger, which I found a bit odd.  I tracked the issue back to the following problem.  When I originally referenced the WindowsFormsIntegration.DLL from my project, the "Copy Local" option was set to false.  When I went back in and set that value to True, the application promptly broke when it ran in the debugger.  I don't mind when things break as long as they break consistently, so this was a step in the right direction.  I had found a few helpful forum entries informing me that you have to specify the xml namespace for the WindowsFormsIntegration assembly.  So I added the following xmlns entry:

xmlns:wfi="clr-namespace:System.Windows.Forms.Integration;assembly=WindowsFormsIntegration"

And changed my WindowsFormsIntegration tag from

<WindowsFormsHost>
    ...
</WindowsFormsHost>

to

<wfi:WindowsFormsHost>
    ...
</wfi:WindowsFormsHost>

and it started working just fine.

I've been working with a number of XML documents recently.  Basically I'm trying to expose configuration values stored in XML configuration files in an object-oriented structure.  I'm using an in-memory XML document and just referencing values as needed from that document.  The XML reading does not need to be super-high performance because it does not occur very often, but it got me to thinking... what if it did?

So I ran some performance tests to check the difference between accessing a value from an XML document vs. storing the value in cache and accessing it through a standard get property. 

The results (at least on my machine) are as follows:

I knew caching would beat out the other two methods since it's very fast to access a direct variable, but I was surprised that there was such a difference.  I figured there would be a bit of overhead for the inner text property, and a bit more for the attribute lookup, but I was thinking it would be in the range of 10-20% slower.  Live and learn.  Of course, reading from an in-memory XML document is still pretty dang fast, it's just that reading from a cached value is faster.

I ran into a bit of a problem the other day with Microsoft Virtual PC staring outside of my viewable desktop area.  And it turns out that it wasn't just a fluke, because it's happened a couple of times since then.  And Robby, one of the guys I work with at Cogent, had the same problem.  Here's how you get around the issue (I assume this works for any window if you have this issue, not just VPC):

1. Right click on the Microsoft Virtual PC Taskbar item and choose "Move" from the context menu
2. Hold the CTRL button and hit your arrow keys a few times.  This makes the title bar of the window "stick" to the mouse.
3. Wave your moue around wildly until you see the window
4. Click the left mouse button and the title bar will "unstick"

That should get your window back.

SharePoint does a good job of hiding errors from users.  Out of the box, unhandled errors in SharePoint result in a fairly non-descript page that says "An Error Occurred" (or something to that effect).  Although a good practice for your end-users, it's pretty annoying when you're trying to get a piece of code working or a configuration setting correct.  Here's how you can display debugging information in your browser:

• Find the following line in your web.config:
  
  <SafeMode MaxControls="200" CallStack="false" DirectFileDependencies="10" TotalFileDependencies="50" AllowPageLevelTrace="false">
  
• Change the CallStack attribute to true
• Change the AllowPageLevelTrace to true
• Find the following line in your web.config:
  
  <customErrors mode="On" />
  
• Change the mode to "Off"

The next time you have an error, it displays the familiar ASP.NET error information page with exception details and the callstack information.  Much less frustrating than a blasé error message.

SharePoint 2007 has a new control called the SPSecurityTrimmedControl.  It's a container control that allows you to hide or display a section of your page depending on whether or not the currently logged-in user has the appropriate permissions.  To set the permissions, however, you need to know what SharePoint calls the permissions.  Took a little while to drudge it up, but here's the list:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.sharepoint.spbasepermissions.aspx

Action 19 News in Ohio was hot on the investigative trail of a Girl Scout cookie scalper today.  Apparently, the owner of a Valero gas station in Parma Heights, Ohio bought a LOT of Girl Scout cookie boxes and is selling them in his store for $4 dollars.  Girls Scouts, on the other hand, peddle the boxes boxes for $3 dollars door to door.  Kate Donahue of the Girl Scouts of Lake Erie called the Valero owner's actions dishonorable and dishonest. 

Dishonorable?  Dishonest?  How so? 

Now, I must concede that I am not in possession of all the facts surrounding the situation because the news clip was about two minutes long and didn't go into much detail.  There were only two piece of information that you can really get from it.  First, the owner was buying the boxes for $3 and selling them for $4.  Second, the boxes say that resale of the boxes is unauthorized.  So, I'm running with those two facts.

From what I understand, the Girl Scouts sell boxes of cookies for $3, and the owner of the store purchased the boxes for $3 dollar a box.  Nobody was complaining about non-payment, so it was obviously not an issue.  The Girl Scouts received all that they desired for the boxes of cookies.  No dishonesty or dishonorable behavior there.

In his store, he sold the cookies for $4.  People paid $4.  People got their cookies.  From what I understand, there was no misleading signage saying anything about giving every single last dollar to the Girl Scouts.  So, no dishonor or dishonesty there. 

But what about making an extra dollar off the box?  Dawn Hendrick, the reporter on the case, brought up a good point when she asked why she had to spend $4 on a box of cookies at the Valero when the Girl Scouts were selling them for $3.  Here's why Dawn: you bought it from a Valero and not from a Girl Scout!

There are only two types of people in a purchasing situation.  The first type of person is the type who does not know the going rate of an item.  This person has to rely on their own perception of value to determine if a price is correct.  If they want cookies, see a box, and determine that the prices is reasonable, then they purchase that box of cookies.  By purchasing the cookies, they are agreeing that the price is reasonable and correct.

The second type of person is the type who does know the going rate of an item.  If they see a price that is above the going rate, they have a decision to make: is getting the item at the current location worth the additional cost?  If it's not, then the buyer can leave.  By purchasing the box, however, the buyer is agreeing that the extra cost is justified due to convenience. 

If you can sell and item for more than you bought it for, then you have brought value to the person buying it.  It may be perceived value, or convenience value, but you have provided value none-the-less.  Pocketing the difference is called profit, and it's how the world works.  In fact, I can guarantee you that the Girl Scouts are not spending $3 dollars to MAKE the box of cookies that they are selling for $3.  So their stance against someone selling their cookies at a profit seems a bit irrational.  And considering that their sales force consists of tens of thousands of unpaid child laborers, I would say that they have a pretty good racket going on themselves.

My favorite part of the newscast is when a Girl Scout says "We use our money for our troop and other stuff, and he just gets it for himself to spend."  It was meant to be a damning condemnation from the mouth of a child, and that's how it comes across in the interview. But the reality is that shows the absurdity of the outrage towards the Valero owner.  Basically, the Girl Scouts are out selling cookies because they need money to pay for Scouting related activities.  The Valero owner is selling products at his gas station because he needs money to pay for living related activities.  So why is the Valero owner being accused of perpetuating some great evil upon the world when the Girl Scouts are engaging in the same act? 

Some would then argue that since boxes of Girls Scout Cookies say "Any Resale or Redistribution is Unauthorized" that the owner was in violation of some law.  As far as I know, the Girl Scouts do not regular commerce, and the printing on the side of the box does not constitute a binding contract.  Re-selling the item is not a legal offense.  Since he never claimed to be an "authorized" reseller, I see no dishonesty.  Some would go as far as to say that it was unethical to sell the boxes when such a message exists on the box, and thus dishonorable.  Ethics is far more subjective than law, but I would still say that this is not beyond the bound of ethics because no official agreement exists.  Unless there is an official agreement, the Girl Scouts have no right to dictate how someone uses what they bought.

I will, however, concede that selling Girl Scout cookies for a profit has the potential to cut into Girl Scout's cookie revenue.  When someone pays $12 dollars for Girl Scout cookies from a Girl Scout, they get 4 boxes and $12 goes to the Girl Scouts.  At Valero, $12 gets you 3 boxes and only $9 dollars goes to the Girl Scouts.  But we are also talking about a luxury item, and most people are going to get however many boxes they want without much regard for the price.  As such, the lost revenue angle is not an overly compelling argument.  And remember, regardless of where you get the box from, $3 bucks DOES go to the Girl Scouts. 

Sounds to me like the Girl Scouts are unhappy because they didn't think to raise the price to $4 a box first. 

Perhaps the real solution to the problem would be for the owner to stockpile cookies until AFTER the Girl Scouts have done all their selling.  Then four months later when everyone's supply of Thin Mints, Tagalongs, and Somoas are depleted, put them out on the shelves for $6 per box.  I'm addicted to Somoas, so I know I'd be pretty tempted to pony up for a box.

As a developer, I’ve had to endure my fair share of designers lecturing on the virtues of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and maintaining a strict divide between content elements and their visual layout.  It’s a noble pursuit, but for a developer with little design experience the task of getting a page to look just the way you want using CSS can be a difficult and frustrating undertaking that quickly regresses back to the form I know best:  using table after table for layouts and haphazardly slapping style strings into various elements until the page comes out looking right.  In other words, the approach designers hate.
Instead of abiding in my ignorance of CSS, I decided to pick up a copy of Pro CSS Techniques by Jeff Croft, Ian Lloyd, and Dan Rubin.  It’s an intermediate to advanced-level book on CSS that assumes you have some basic knowledge of CSS.  If you feel comfortable using styles directly in your HTML, then you’ll be comfortable reading through this book.  The authors did a great job of covering the basics enough to inform you if you need it, but not dwelling on it to the point of boredom if you do not.  They also did a great job of explaining the “how” and “why” behind some of the most confusing aspects of CSS, which is why I definitely recommend picking up a copy.

Pro CSS Techniques starts out with a great introduction to Semantic HTML, the concept that HTML should only define what is on the page, not what it should look like.  It also discusses why you need to write Semantic HTML if you want to use CSS effectively.  After understanding this concept in more detail, I understand why I ran into so many walls trying to use CSS to style my pages:  I was fighting an uphill battle against the layout and style information that was already in my HTML document. 
After outlining some of the theory behind CSS, the authors discuss the CSS language and syntax.  If you are novice with CSS, this will bring you up to speed very quickly.  The section discussing CSS selectors was invaluable.  I’ve read a number of online tutorials for CSS and none of them ever got into the detail offered by this book.  And if you’ve ever wondered about the “Cascading” part of Cascading Style Sheets, then you’ll find a complete overview about the intricacies of that as well.

You will also find an entire chapter containing valuable information on how the various browsers handle CSS and how to get your pages looking consistent across those browsers without hacks.  And when a traditional approach won’t work, you can turn to the chapter entirely dedicated to CSS Hacks that discusses what they are, what they do, when to use them, when to avoid them, and how to use them in your CSS.
As you work with CSS, you can use the book as a guide because it breaks out common tasks into individual chapters.  You can easily thumb through to the applicable section as you build the layout, create common page elements (headers, footers, navigation, breadcrumbs, sidebars, etc), style text, tables, forms, and lists.  I remember the first time I saw a bulleted list turned into a graphical menu and I attributed it to dark magic.  Now I know how it was really done.

And let’s not forget my favorite chapter, “Everything Falls Apart”, which describes most of my experience with CSS up to now.  It covers what to do when things aren’t working, and their solutions are much more elegant than returning to nested table layouts and forgoing the principals of CSS.

I usually like to know what’s in a book, so there’s a chapter listing in case you’re curious:

• Chapter 1 - The Promise of CSS
• Chapter 2 - The Language of Style Sheets
• Chapter 3 - Specificity and the Cascade
• Chapter 4 - The Browsers
• Chapter 5 - Managing CSS Files
• Chapter 6 - Hacks and Workarounds
• Chapter 7 - CSS Layouts
• Chapter 8 - Creating Common Page Elements
• Chapter 9 - Typography
• Chapter 10 - Styling Tables
• Chapter 11 - Styling Forms
• Chapter 12 - Styling Lists
• Chapter 13 - Styling for Print and Other Media
• Chapter 14 - Everything Falls Apart
• Appendix A – CSS Reference
• Appendix B – CSS Specificity Chart
• Appendix C – Browser Grading Chart

All in all, I would highly recommend this book if you have a bit of experience with CSS and really want to solidify your understanding of the technology.  It also does well as a reference book, so once you’ve got the concepts down, I would still keep it close to your computer.