« first day (22 days earlier)      last day (3712 days later) » 

12:55 AM
Hurray! The UPS man done cometh with cigar cheer.
 
1:07 AM
how's it going guys. Could somebody please quickly tell me where I would wan to store library files (DLLs for Fluent NHibernate) in my asp.net mvc 2 project?
 
Wait for @Fosco to show up. He's the resident NHibernate expert here.
 
 
1 hour later…
2:18 AM
All of your moms.
 
Are belong to us.
 
All your moms.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:32 AM
so when is chiphacker.com going to get replaced?
 
4:07 AM
i'm looking for someone with any experience using fluent nhibernate
when I try to set up my mapping like so: Id(x => x.Id); it doesn't recognize Id
I'm not sure whats going on :(
 
0
Q: (Fluent) NHibernate - problem mapping Id

Bruno ReisHello, I have a problem mapping an Id. The structures of the entities are as follows: public abstract class Entity<TEntity, TId> where TEntity : Entity<TEntity, TId> { public virtual TId Id { get; protected set; } public override bool Equals(object obj)... ... } publ...

 
mine wont even compile
i'm still a little new to C# so that might be part of the problem
 
probably. If I had to guess, I'd say you screwed up a base class definition... But I know nothing about NHibernate
 
I mean... its really simple. Here is a pastebin if you feel like looking. pastebin.com/DuEq1X7S
Ok... I think I'm just being stupid. I obviously need to reference more libraries
 
4:26 AM
@JoePhillips I don't understand where the Id() function is coming from, nHibernate magic?
 
It must be Fluent magic
 
whoa...
wtf, chat?
@Earlz Id constructor
@Joe: why are you defining the Id property with a private set method?
 
I'm just following the Fluent "Getting Started"
I think I just need to figure out which namespace ClassMap is in
yeah, that seems to be my problem: using FluentNHibernate.Mapping;
and the Id(x => x.Id) is just a lambda expression (I'm still kind of new to them)
Well thanks for letting me talk that one out... I guess that's all it takes sometimes
 
np
 
 
1 hour later…
6:00 AM
definitely a site that Jeff will not allow to reach beta. lol
 
6:17 AM
eeenteresting
I guess the prohibition on subjectivity would go out the window there.
In fact, a ban on objective would probably be appropriate. :D
 
"woo"
 
6:37 AM
Flinging woo are we?
 
apparently
 
howdy
 
any thoughts on our new tag section stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/php
 
6:52 AM
Is the popup on tags new?
 
pop on tags?
 
*popup lol
 
the pop down "about this tag" is new ... but mainly wondering if you are finding the new sections interesting
 
like new/hot answers, like that synonyms are separate from wiki, like that the excerpt is displayed in a big honkin' box at the top of all question lists...
 
OIC very cool
 
6:55 AM
DON'T like the author name before titles in the answers lists, or the lack of excerpts in "hot"
 
yeah i kind of used the same ui we have in the "inbox" .... im not sure, perhaps we should rev it
 
and why is it new answers by new users (vs. just "new answers")?
 
well the idea is to give a special place where we can give extra tlc to new users ...
we want to upvote new users more (if they are good)
 
ah
 
ofcourse this is not going to fly :) stackoverflow.com/questions/736532/…
 
7:01 AM
are you kiddin'? I use E-Vapt in all my SaaS apps!
 
7:48 AM
"to upvote new users more (if they are good)" or, you know, the opposite..
 
Perhaps we should incorporate this into the SE sites?
ie. have some AI that anticipates questions and pre-duplicates them or whatnot
or perhaps we could anticipate what Jon Skeet would answer and just provide a SkeetBot
 
you mean, port Jon Skeet to C#?
 
Yeah
Didn't I see a JavaToCSharp conversion tool somewhere? Shouldn't be that hard
Captain Recursion? Is that an unlikely superhero (if you get that reference)? :)
Sort of like "Captain Obvious"?
 
what? ubuntu 10.10 does no longer ship by default with aptitude?
aww.
 
wds
aptitude was in maintenance only mode 2 years ago
I think it might have some trouble keeping up
 
8:06 AM
I don't know, I like it much better than fiddling with synaptic or apt-*
 
wds
the most useful feature I found in it back in the day was marking libraries as being auto-installed
 
which in turn marks a few of those for deletion
 
wds
it's very good for browsing through dependency trees too though
 
quick and dirty cleanup
aye.
 
wds
yeah, apt has auto-marking now but the browsing in synaptic is probably shit
 
8:11 AM
dependency tree walking in aptitude is great, although ironically enough dependency hell solving is one of Aptitude's weakest spots
although it only is a problem if you're like using Ubuntu alphas or similarly-quickly changing repositories.
 
wds
it was mostly useful for me when I used to run debian sid
with some experimental packages thrown in
 
8:51 AM
> The only thing about the Droid 2 that we really feel compelled to complain about is the phone's default ringtone. [...] It sounds like a DJ remixing a recording of R2-D2 being eaten by a Bantha. My father, who picked up a Droid 2 the day after launch, mistakenly thought that the phone's speaker was broken the first time he heard the ringtone, because it was inconceivable to him that a properly-functioning device would emit such a horrifying cacophony.
 
wds
9:22 AM
"you have to hear it for yourself..." so he couldn't record it and include a link in the review?
 
9:40 AM
I guess that'd be a copyright problem, but apparently this is it
speaking of copyrights -- are contracts copyrighted?
I'd like to include a snippet from here in a relevant question.
The lawyers didn't think adding anchors to the text would be a good idea =/
 
So, you've probably all been asked this, but is there any way to connect to chat.meta.SO through something like IRC?
 
wds
no there's a link to a youtube vid in the comments somewhere that has the real sound
 
Like, via some sort of magic remote bot
 
wds
it's as bad as he made it sound
 
wds
9:49 AM
@badp Quoting is always possible under fair use, just link back to it
@HarryGindi I don't think there's any way to connect via IRC yet, unless someone wrote a bot already
 
Gah, that's absurd
 
why? this chat has a few features that can't be ported to IRC
like editing, starring, flagging, multiple lines.
 
because IRC is pleasant to use
and this is not
IRC has a certain kind of charm that webchat can never achieve
 
Tried a better browser? :P
 
as opposed to?
tbh, the features are not all that important
 
9:53 AM
Editing is awesome.
No more *fixing typos.
 
it wouldn't be all that hard to code all of the features into an irc bot
for each user
alas, I'm not a programmer, and even if I were, I wouldn't have access to the backend of the chat
 
ugh, you mean modded mIRC style?
ugh
 
wds
IRC is pretty good, but it does have its downsides
 
as in, you relay from the irc client to a virtual client on the server side
 
wds
9:56 AM
anyway, the web chat client still has some issues for me, particularly when hitting enter it does this annoying redraw
 
then replace the ordinary commands here with text-based commands
granted, this is my first time using this web client thing
how does editing work?
let's see
asdf
*asdf
ah ha, I see
you literally have to click through a menu to edit.
asdf
 
no, up arrow will suffice
 
asdf
^nice hat
 
no, not caret, the cursor up key
 
I think that this software would get a lot more usage if it were released as a standalone client
 
10:01 AM
I think one of the points is to make a brand, and to avoid "everyone and their uncle has a phpBB forum with 2 users"
 
wds
that's not the goal, though
 
goes for both the SE sites and the chat system, at least that's how I figure it
 
that's idiotic
nobody comes to SE for the chat
 
no, that I agree on
 
and anyway, releasing a standalone client wouldn't affect anything.
 
10:03 AM
oh, sorry, I misunderstood completely!
I thought you meant that the software should be available
 
I don't like web applications like this
they're slow, they eat up a huge amount of memory
 
I agree completely, a Windows (or any other OS) client for this would be much better IMO!
yep
and I close my browsers very often to clean up memory and get rid of 20+ tabs
 
yes, precisely
 
would be better if I could have a standalone client for it
I think it would be doable though
the system is based around messages, I think
 
yeah, sure
 
10:05 AM
I mean, someone here built a mini irc-server to start locally, so that you can use a normal irc-client to connect to the chat-system
I doubt it is full-featured, but it shows promise as to making such a client
 
yeah, that's what I was saying they should do
but make it server-side
hey balpha, you're one of the SE valued associates
 
I doubt a irc-server is really the best way to make a proper client for this
 
question for you: why not make a standalone client for SE chat?
@balpha, rather
 
yep
 
pardon?
 
10:08 AM
@HarryGindi Greg Hewgill has been hacking around some -- haven't used it, sp can't say anything about it: github.com/ghewgill/soirc
 
ah, I see
 
@HarryGindi yep, I am "one of the SE valued associates"
 
@balpha, why not just release some sort of chat API so we can deal with things directly?
instead of hacking it
 
> just release some sort of chat API
yeah, that's a piece of cake, isn't it?
 
yeah, I'm not a programmer, so I guess that might have been kind of naive
 
10:12 AM
also, with about 3 1/2 people who prefer an IRC client, I wouldn't say that could be a high-priority thing
 
I'd say it's more than that...
I have IRC on way more than I have my browser on
I've logged some 6 years in idle time!
it's annoying to have to use another application for the same purpose, especially a web application
 
and who made you the archetypical user?
 
the archepope, didn't you know?
=p
I mean, there are some features here that aren't available on IRC, but the converse is also true
 
wds
re memory usage, just get more RAM :P
 
re stupid answer: Aren't you supposed to be programmers? What happened to efficiency?
 
wds
10:18 AM
efficiency is costly, takes away resources you can spend elsewhere
good enough is good enough
 
on what, pray tell?
 
wds
features, for one
 
feature bloat
 
wds
meh, I'm a programmer, I have 4 gig of RAM in one of my boxes and 8 gig in another
I've never had a browser use up all my RAM
 
except maybe IE opening a huge xml file...
won't make that mistake again (several years ago, though)
 
10:21 AM
Irssi takes up basically no memory and no cpu =p
webchat is for people who don't have the gusto to install an IRC client
(on IRC)
If you find yourself on IRC for more than an hour, it's worth installing a standalone client. The same applies here.
 
in the same way that if I find myself in email for more than an hour, I should install a standalone client? nah, gmail is ideal thanks
 
gmail is ideal? really?
 
I think the real question there is why? Hopefully we can provide a client that gives you what you think you need from a standalone client, with the accessibility of a web client.
 
pine 4 life
=p
 
Yes, gmail is ideal. I stand by that. I have no need of outlook or any other email client.
 
10:30 AM
Pine is a freeware, text-based e-mail client developed at the University of Washington. The first version of this client was written in 1989. Source code was available for only the Unix version under a license written by the University of Washington. Pine is no longer under development, and has been replaced by the new Alpine client, which is licensed as free software. Supported platforms There are both Unix and Windows versions of Pine. The Unix version is text user interface based—its message editor inspired the text editor Pico. The Windows (and formerly DOS) version is called...
 
If you want to cling to that, fine...
 
In all seriousness though
you missed my point
 
there was a point?
 
I will reiterate it with clarification
After using a web client for more than an hour for chat, it's clearly worth using a standalone client.
 
why "clearly"?
you've just successfully used a chat for an hour. I fail to see why that means you need a different client.
 
10:33 AM
how long have you spent using non-SE webchats?
 
that's like saying "I've been playing a flash game for an hour. Clearly I need an xbox"
 
The redraw on this chat is incredibly annoying.
I'm just procrastinating doing something, and this is where I ended up
and I figured I might be able to talk to the administrators
 
Take me to your leader
 
@Harry this chat has a few quirks, throw it away and replace it with a smart client :) (note I am being sarcastic here)
 
I don't think I ever suggested getting rid of the web chat =p
Correct me if I did
 
10:37 AM
well you said ... web aint good enough for you
 
I said that it was inconvenient for me
I mean, by all means, be sarcastic, but at least try to be on point with it.
 
well I fail to understand why we "clearly" need a smart client
I can follow that version 10.0 "clearly" may need an api
but we are not even version 1.0 yet
why fork our efforts?
 
I fail to see your point.
Because I can't see what would be so hard to write
 
building a smart client take much more than 0 time.
hence my comment about version 10.0 having an api
besides, I fail to see why a smart client would be any better ...
 
Faster, nicer, less latency
 
10:42 AM
@HarryGindi But you're not a programmer, so how could you?
 
magic
 
@HarryGindi so why not simply make the web client "faster, nicer less latency" then ... everybody wins that way
 
because web clients are inherently going to be crappier
 
@HarryGindi barging in after a few minutes and saying "you should do x" when you actually mean "I want x" is a good way to attract sarcasm, and more...
 
@benjol: shove it
 
10:44 AM
@HarryGindi yes, the speed of light is different for rich-clients
4
 
@MarcGravell its like at least 3 times faster
 
Fine, then I will take a different approach to this argument
I say this only to avoid cries of "stop changing your arguments", and I will grant that my previous one was weak
Consider the following: stand-alone clients trade ease of use for customizability
 
I don't accept that statement
 
go on
 
standalone clients can be just as inflexible - more, even
 
10:49 AM
sorry for the test but I keep getting a banner saying there are issues trying to connect...
 
If I really want, I can write a grease-monkey for this
I can run this on my mobile device, not just my desktop
I don't need any installs - I can run it in a locked down environment
I don't need to be a computer expert to install this
 
@HarryGindi - what operating system do you use? The advantage of web chat is that it can be used on any OS with a browser, a stand alone client would have to be written for all the different OS's. Personally I think the work and effort that has gone into chat.meta.stackoverflow has been huge and they had come up with a great system
 
@scunliffe Yes, try a hard-F5
 
The fact that standalone clients exist means that it's possible for someone to write a good standalone client
 
we have an experimental change in the pipe; it didn't work. Blame me.
But hey! I just upgraded all the clients!
 
10:50 AM
@pier
crud
 
Standalone clients might be a feature in the future, but I wholly agree with Marc and waffles, this is not the time to spend any time on it
 
thanks @MarcGravell was just wondering...
 
Unless someone else wants to deal with hourly changes to API and whatnot and try to keep up
 
@PiersMyers, it might have to be compiled for multiple OSes, but there are plenty of crossplatform toolkits, no?
 
@HarryGindi no, that just proves that it is possible to write a standalone client. It says nothing about quality, relative or absolute.
 
10:52 AM
I'd say that a published API for some of the functions would be much more useful, for instance, allow me to monitor the chat with a tray-icon app or similar
But again, not now
 
@Marc, yes, but the fact that a standalone client exists makes it easy to write a barebones one
 
no it doesn't
if a standalone client exists, that only proves it is possible
 
There is an underlying premise / question here:
 
@Lasse: If the people who wrote the original client were smart/not lazy, and they haven't purposely put up roadblocks, I can't see why it should be all that hard
 
what is it that you think would be better about a standalone client?
 
10:54 AM
Which original client are you referring to btw?
 
without using the word "clearly", 'cos that doesn't sail.
 
Why do I need to load up all of the extraneous stuff in my browser to read text?
 
Why do you need an operating system to read text?
Cause someone else did all the work, and it works
 
Because running entirely without an OS is inefficient on the human side
 
So is creating a separate client right now
It would be in constant flux, trying to keep up with changes
 
10:58 AM
my browser (Firefox) is probably the most used application on my system and I usually have it open all the time
 
Even the greatest programmer who ever lived would have a hard time doing anything if he had to flick registers on and off like they did in the 60s
 
You missed my point
 
Well, then you shouldn't have used such a silly rhetorical device.
 
Being the greatest programmer who ever lived, I could speak to that point, if you'd like.
2
 
My point was that the browser already exists, so creating a whole different client just to duplicate that functionality is not efficient
And the chat system is still very much a moving target
 

« first day (22 days earlier)      last day (3712 days later) »