User profile for AdamsGuitar

I discovered the issue. While the problem still baffles me, it does not appear to be related to the profiler. When I tried running my application alone (i.e. not attached to the VS debugger or to the profiler), I have the same issue, but the application works fine in the debugger. It has something to do with parsing the XAML in a style file that I've included. If anyone is interested in reviewing the problem (again, not related to the profiler), you're welcome to have a look here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8299 ... o-debugger FWIW, Once I comment out the offending style definitions, the profiler can attach and function normally. Thanks for your help! / comments

I discovered the issue. While the problem still baffles me, it does not appear to be related to the profiler. When I tried running my application alone (i.e. not attached to the VS debugger or to t...

0 votes

Chris.Allen wrote: Can I just check- does this happen with all profiling modes - have you tried sampling mode too? It does; I've tried all of the modes in the dropdown and they all produce the same error. I notice that it lists a FileNotFoundException for System.Windows.Interactivity.dll earlier in the timeline before it lists the XamlParseException shortly before the profiling session terminates. The odd thing is that the assembly is present and installed (and, I'm fairly certain, in the GAC; I'll have to check when I get back to work shortly, though) and the application runs perfectly fine from within the VS debugger. / comments

Chris.Allen wrote: Can I just check- does this happen with all profiling modes - have you tried sampling mode too? It does; I've tried all of the modes in the dropdown and they all produce the...

0 votes

Performance Profiler Causes XamlParseException

I'm attempting to evaluate the Performance Profiler, and I'm using it on my WPF client application. Whenever I launch a session for my application (whether from within the Performance Profiler appl...

2 followers 4 comments 0 votes

JDelekto wrote: I wonder what would happen if they allow the community to download a current version 6 with the 'forced upgrade' removed. It would probably make the community ecstatic.. Considering the fact that so many people on here have expressed that very thought, it seems like a pretty safe bet. / comments

JDelekto wrote: I wonder what would happen if they allow the community to download a current version 6 with the 'forced upgrade' removed. It would probably make the community ecstatic.. Consi...

0 votes

scottt732 wrote: sergiopereira wrote: Right now I'm hoping MS wakes up to the importance of Reflector in .NET and realizes they have a severe gap in the SDK without Reflector. I hope they either acquire this software and include in the SDK or create something similar. If you think this capability would be more affordable under MS, please keep in mind that IntelliTrace, one of the cooler features of VS2010, is only available in the $11,899 Ultimate SKU. That's more than double the premium price, and almost 15x the professional price. I definitely don't see them buying Reflector and giving it away for free in the SDK. -Scott Not to get off-topic here, but I think a more reasonable comparison would be what MS did with the SysInternals tools (Process Explorer, et. al.), which are still free and have actually improved under MS' oversight. / comments

scottt732 wrote: sergiopereira wrote: Right now I'm hoping MS wakes up to the importance of Reflector in .NET and realizes they have a severe gap in the SDK without Reflector. I hope they eit...

0 votes

RichardD wrote: jeremy.parsons wrote: There really isn't anything there that's a promise that Reflector was going to be free forever. It seems to me there are two groups of complaints here: People who thought Reflector would be free forever, including new versions You (RedGate) are consistently responding to this by trying to weasel out of your commitment, pretending that things you said didn't mean what we all thought they meant. Whilst I wouldn't say I'm happy that you're going to charge for v7, I can understand why you're doing it, and I'm not particularly surprised. People who expect that existing versions of free tools won't be taken away from them So far, your only response to this has been, "Lutz done it! It's not our fault! Buy v7 and it won't ever expire, honest guv!" You have completely ignored the huge difference between forcing users of a free program to upgrade to the latest free version, and forcing users of a free program to upgrade to a paid-for version. What you are doing here can only be compared to extortion. Try to imagine the reaction if Microsoft announced that SQL Express wasn't making them enough money, so the next version would cost $10, and buried in the FAQ was a note that existing installations of any previous version of SQL Express would stop working and delete themselves if you didn't upgrade. Or if that's too difficult, try this: a girl you had sex with at university tracks you down and announces that, as she's now a prostitute, you need to pay her for sleeping with you; if you don't, she'll claim you raped her. That's how we all feel right now. RedGate Ransomware Ltd Screwing our customers for money since 2011 "We cn haz munny nao?!" This has hit the nail on the head completely. "Promise" or not (what makes something a promise? The presence of the word "promise"?), the implication was that there would "continue to be" (with no qualification, if we're going to split hairs) a version of Reflector that was free, as it had always been in the past. As with Richard, I can certainly see how future updates could be a pay-to-play deal, but (as has been expressed by many people and thought by many more) being passive about the time bomb in V6 and throwing up your hands and saying "It's always done that!" is pretty slimy. As if switching to the 6.5 branch, commenting out the time bomb, then publishing a new final build of 6.5 would require some sort of heroic effort. If you're going to try to force people to pay for the product (or abandon it, which doesn't get you any more money than if they continue to use the free version, but does get you a load of bad reputation), then at least be honest about it. / comments

RichardD wrote: jeremy.parsons wrote: There really isn't anything there that's a promise that Reflector was going to be free forever. It seems to me there are two groups of complaints here:...

0 votes

mat wrote: Unobfuscation could be considered circumvention of copy protection, which could land Red Gate in very hot water. Aint gonna happen. There's a difference between unobfuscation (which, realistically, is not possible without something that can "know" what the code is doing in a larger context) and not crashing on valid input. The very purpose of obfuscation is to produce code that is semantically (and usually, if not always, syntactically) the same as the original code, but with the meaningfulness of the names removed, and often using identifiers that are legal in IL but not in other languages. Even if the identifiers are illegal in the language, there's no technical reason that Reflector needs to crash when they are so. It just won't be producing code that you can slap into VS and compile, which shouldn't be a problem for anyone using Reflector to figure out what's going on. / comments

mat wrote: Unobfuscation could be considered circumvention of copy protection, which could land Red Gate in very hot water. Aint gonna happen. There's a difference between unobfuscation (whic...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

AdamsGuitar

Activity overview