---

From:  "Bob Allen" <PLUS-5871384-EG@MWBMM.getrelatedinfo.com>
Reply-To:  <REPLY-5871384-EG@reply.getrelatedinfo.com>
Subject:  I found you a new job
Date:  Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:29:26 -0400
> >>> Offers from DealPlus. 10/28/2005
> >>> Special for Daniel Johnson
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Hey... Bob here! I've been trying to
>get a hold of you to see how you're doing.
>So, how are you? I've been doing really good.
>I finally found a new job... and I'm doing well.
>  You really should try what I've been doing.
>I have more free time now that I don't have
>to work a normal 9 to 5 job. This year
>should be fun since I can finally afford
>to buy all the things that I want with t
>he income.
>http://www.Go.getrelatedinfo.com/go/g/34/10117/1/?4831785
>Let me know how it goes.
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ESI 5072 North 300 West Provo UT 84604
>To not receive this: http://www.Go.getrelatedinfo.com/go/g/34/10117/2/?4831785
>------------------------------------------------------------
>               >> Customer Help Center  <<
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  You recieve this email because you registered at one of the
>  sites in the BluePinstripes Email Network or opted in through
>  one of BluePinstripes partners.
>
>  This email was sent to: Daniel Johnson <opencase@hotmail.com>
>  Customer ticket: EG::10117:5871384:0
>
>  Our privacy policy: http://www.Go.getrelatedinfo.com/Privacy/
>  We will not sell, publish or distribute your personal data.
>
>  If you feel you getting this message in error, or you don't
>  desire to get propositions from E-Get,
>  please follow this link:
>
>  http://www.Go.getrelatedinfo.com/go/g/34/10117/r/?4831785
>
>  Or send us an email to: RemoveService@E-Get.net
>  (You can simply hit reply button)
>
>  If You have questions regarding this message please contact
>  Customer Care Center at: CustomerCare@E-Get.net
>
>  Your E-Get.net. The GMB Direct property.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>  Thank you for your time.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Clients rely on proxy objects
>
>
>A proxy eventually hands a call's information to a channel object. The channel object is
>responsible for using some appropriate mechanism, such as a TCP connection, to convey the
>client's request to the remote app domain. Once the request arrives in that app domain, a
>channel object running there locates the object for which this call is destined, perhaps
>creating it if the object isn't already running. The call is then passed to the object,
>which executes it and passes any results back through the same path.
>
>
>Communication is handled by channel objects
>
>
>At a high level, the process is simple. In fact, however, there's much more going on
>than this simple description shows. It's possible, for instance, to insert code that
>intercepts and customizes the in-progress call at several points in the path between
>caller and object. The details get quite involved-remote access is never simple to
>implement well-but most of the complexity can remain invisible to developers using .NET
>Remoting. The goal of this section is to present a broad overview of how this technology
>works.
>
>
>.NET Remoting provides many opportunities for customization
>
>Passing Information to Remote Objects
>
>
>Calling a method in an object is straightforward when both the client and the object are
>in the same app domain. Parameters of value types such as integers are passed by value,
>which means that their contents are simply copied from client to object. Parameters of
>reference types, such as classes, are passed by reference, which means that a reference
>to the instance itself is passed-no separate copy is made. Calling a method in an object
>gets more complicated when the two are in different app domains, however, and so .NET
>Remoting must address these complications. Even accessing a remote object's properties or
>fields requires some way to transfer information across an app domain boundary. The
>process of packaging values for transfer to another app domain is called marshaling, and
>there are several options for how it gets done.
>
>
>Values passed between app domains must be marshaled and unmarshaled
>
>
>One option is marshal by value (MBV). As the name suggests, transferring an instance of
>some type using this option copies its value to the remote app domain. For this to work,
>a user-defined type must be serializable, that is, its definition must be marked with the
>Serializable attribute. When an instance of that type is passed as a parameter in a
>remote call, the object's state is automatically serialized and passed to the remote app
>domain. Once it arrives, a new instance of that type is created and initialized using the
>serialized state of the original. (Note that the c
>------------------------------------------------------------
>uld make the software even better, rather than the more usual case in which larger
>applications have more bugs. This has been seen at Symantec, where it was reported that
>"there were only five bugs found at beta, which was radical. By another measure, Orca
>today, after six months of development, had only 14 bugs across 13 [two-week]
>iterations." [Morales, 2002]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>What About Code That Is Hard to Test?
>Code that was written from the ground up with Test First Development is easy to test,
>but other code can be much harder to test. The challenge that XP teams face is that their
>code has good test coverage and they feel confident that it is solid. With other code,
>that confidence is not there.
>Converting from a traditional project to an XP project is hard because the original code
>does not have XP-style unit tests. Although it may be feasible to create unit tests for
>the original code, this could take months, and in that time the team would not be
>delivering new features or functionality. In practice, what most teams try to do is to
>write unit tests only for code that they are modifying. Working with the rest of the
>untested code is still an issue, however, and an XP team could be tempted to push to
>restart the project from scratch to avoid the pain of dealing with the original code.
>Sometimes this can be a useful option, but the organization has to be sure that the
>existing code cannot be salvaged in order for this to be a realistic option.
>When working with external libraries, the lack of unit tests can make it hard for an XP
>team to make progress. Because the unit tests have to run at 100 percent, problems with
>an external library can cause major headaches with getting the tests to pass. Over time,
>this will resolve itself as more and more libraries are shipped with XP-style unit tests,
>but until then there will always be some discussion as to whether it is better to use an
>external library or to create a robust version in-house.
>GUI code probably tops the list as being very hard to test. All GUI libraries are large
>and complex, and most were not developed with the idea that programmers needed an easy
>way to test their applications. Although we now have capture/playback testing tools,
>these are of limited use because they interact only with the user interface. They cannot
>easily compare values in the running application with data displayed on the user
>interface. Currently, most teams resolve this by making the GUI code as thin as possible
>and by providing an alternate input mechanism for testing the user interface.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Can Acceptance Tests Be Used to Measure Progress?
>One strange aspect of XP is that it uses acceptance test scores as a measure of project
>progress. Although user stories are used to plan the work for each iteration, completion
>of a user story is measured by the associated acceptance tests.
>The basic idea is that if testable requirements are a good idea, then making the tests
>the requirements is an even better idea. The obvious downside to this is
>------------------------------------------------------------
>ize the UML notation. You may find it useful to refer to these as you are reading the
>chapters so that you can check on the notation for the various modeling concepts.
>If you find this book interesting, you can find other information on my work related to
>using the UML, patterns, and refactoring at my home page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Changes for the Second Edition
>As the UML evolved, and I received feedback about the first edition of the book, I
>continually updated it. We reprinted every two or three months; nearly every printing
>contained updates, which resulted in considerable strain on the processes of the
>publishing industry.
>With the change from UML 1.2 to 1.3, we decided to do a more thorough overhaul of the
>book, enough to produce a second edition. Since the book has been so popular, I've tried
>not to change the essential spirit of the book. I've carefully tried to not add much, and
>to see whether there are things I can take away.
>The biggest changes are in Chapter 3, about use cases, and Chapter 9, about activity
>diagrams, which have each received a severe rewrite. I've also added a section on
>collaborations to Chapter 7. Elsewhere, I've taken the opportunity to make a host of
>smaller changes, based on feedback and my experiences over the last couple of years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Acknowledgments for the First Edition
>Putting out a book this fast required a lot of help from people who went beyond the
>normal effort that goes into producing a book to do everything that much more quickly.
>Kendall Scott played an important role in pulling together all the material and working
>over the text and graphics. As I've revised the book, he has continued to keep everything
>in shape, conquering a series of tasks that came with little notice and impossible
>deadlines.
>The three amigos, Grady Booch, Ivar Jacobson, and Jim Rumbaugh, have been full of
>support and advice. We have burned up many hours of transcontinental phone calls, and
>they have improved the book greatly (as well as my understanding of the UML).
>A good slate of book reviewers is essential to doing a good job on a book. Not only did
>these reviewers give me the feedback I needed, they also turned around their comments in
>less than a week to keep to our tight deadlines. My thanks to: Simmi Kochhar Bhargava of
>Netscape Communications Corporation, Eric Evans, Tom Hadfield of Evolve Software, Inc.,
>Ronald E. Jeffries, Joshua Kerievsky of Industrial Logic, Inc., Helen Klein of the
>University of Michigan, James Odell, and Vivek Salgar of Netscape Communications
>Corporation. Double thanks to Tom Hadfield because he did it twice! I want to thank Jim
>Odell for two things: first, for coordinating the Object Management Group (OMG) effort to
>get a single standard UML, which will be a big step forward for our industry; and second,
>for encouraging me to get into the object-oriented analysis and design field. Oh, and
>thanks for reviewing the book, too!
>Thanks to Cindy for dealing with me being absent even when I was home.
>I can't even imagine the difficulties that my editor, J. Carter Shanklin, and his
>assistant, Angela Buenning, went through to get this book out as quickly as they did.
>Whatever these difficulties were, I'm sure Carter and Angela deserve my thanks. The book
>industry is not designed to cope with changing a book every couple of months, but Carter
>and his team have done a
>------------------------------------------------------------
>le and saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a gaunt face, and
>robes stained with silver blood. He was right next to Malfoy who, Harry was pleased to
>see, didn't look too pleased with the seating arrangements.
>
>"How did he get covered in blood?" asked Seamus with great interest.
>
>"I've never asked," said Nearly Headless Nick delicately.
>
>When everyone had eaten as much as they could, the remains of the food faded from the
>plates, leaving them sparkling clean as before. A moment later the desserts appeared.
>Blocks of ice cream in every flavor you could think of, apple pies, treacle tarts,
>chocolate eclairs and jam doughnuts, trifle, strawberries, Jell-O, rice pudding - "
>
>As Harry helped himself to a treacle tart, the talk turned to their families.
>
>"I'm half-and-half," said Seamus. "Me dad's a Muggle. Mom didn't tell him she was a
>witch 'til after they were married. Bit of a nasty shock for him."
>
>The others laughed.
>
>"What about you, Neville?" said Ron.
>
>"Well, my gran brought me up and she's a witch," said Neville, "but the family thought I
>was all-Muggle for ages. My Great Uncle Algie kept trying to catch me off my guard and
>force some magic out of me - he pushed me off the end of Blackpool pier once, I nearly
>drowned - but nothing happened until I was eight. Great Uncle Algie came round for
>dinner, and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great
>Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced - all the
>way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased, Gran was crying, she
>was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here - they thought I
>might not be magic enough to come, you see. Great Uncle Algie was so pleased he bought me
>my toad."
>
>On Harry's other side, Percy Weasley and Hermione were talking about lessons ("I do hope
>they start right away, there's so much to learn, I'm particularly interested in
>Transfiguration, you know, turning something into something else, of course, it's
>supposed to be very difficult - "; "You'll be starting small, just matches into needles
>and that sort of thing - ").
>
>Harry, who was starting to feel warm and sleepy, looked up at
>
>the High Table again. Hagrid was drinking deeply from his goblet. Professor McGonagall
>was talking to Professor Dumbledore. Professor Quirrell, in his absurd turban, was
>talking to a teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin.
>
>It happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight
>into Harry's eyes - and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead.
>
>"Ouch!" Harry clapped a hand to his head.
>
>"What is it?" asked Percy.
>
>"N-nothing."
>
>The pain had gone as quickly as it had come. Harder to shake off was the feeling Harry
>had gotten from the teacher's look - a feeling that he didn't like Harry at all.
>
>"Who's that teacher talking to Professor Quirrell?" he asked Percy.
>
>"Oh, you know Quirrell already, do you? No wonder he's looking so nervous, that's
>Professor Snape. He teaches Potions, but he doesn't want to - everyone knows he's after
>Quirrell's job. Knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts, Snape."
>
>Harry watched Snape for a while, but Snape didn't look at him again.
>
>At last, the desserts too disappeared, and Professor Dumbledore got to his feet again.
>The hall fell silent.
>
>"Ahern - just a few more words now that we are all fed and watered. I have a few
>start-of-term notices to give you.
>
>"First years should note that the forest on the grounds is forbidden to all pupils. And
>a few of our older students would do well to remember that as well."
>
>D
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>