Bug Babble : Babble

Simple VS Addin (updated)

SteveJS — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:41:00 GMT

Back during the PDC for Whidbey I wrote a post about Creating a Simple Addin. Recently I was looking to update it and found a horrible bug in it. First, here is the corrected code:

public void OnConnection(object application, ext_ConnectMode connectMode, object addInInst, ref Array custom)
{
    _applicationObject = (DTE2)application;
    _addInInstance = (AddIn)addInInst;
    _debuggerEvents = _applicationObject.Events.DebuggerEvents;
    _debuggerEvents.OnEnterBreakMode += new _dispDebuggerEvents_OnEnterBreakModeEventHandler(DebuggerEvents_OnEnterBreakMode);

}

private DebuggerEvents _debuggerEvents;
private System.Collections.Generic.Queue<EditPoint> epQ = new System.Collections.Generic.Queue<EditPoint>();
void DebuggerEvents_OnEnterBreakMode(dbgEventReason Reason, ref dbgExecutionAction ExecutionAction)
{
    TextDocument td = (TextDocument) _applicationObject.ActiveDocument.Object("TextDocument");
    EditPoint ep = td.Selection.ActivePoint.CreateEditPoint();
    ep.SetBookmark();
    epQ.Enqueue(ep);
    if (epQ.Count > 5)
    {
        epQ.Dequeue().ClearBookmark();
    }

}

I've changed a couple of things. I now create the Editpoint first and use it to set the bookmark rather than setting the bookmark on the selection then creating an editpoint. This removes that possibility that I save a different place then where I set the bookmark.

The more important issue is I keep a member variable for _applicationObject.Events.DebuggerEvents. Why? Because it keeps that event provider from getting garbage collected. I had made the assumption that the lifetime of _applicationObject.Events.DebuggerEvents would be strictly tied to the DTE object, and managed by automation. That is not the case. The way this bug manifests is pretty ugly since the Addin works as expected for a while, until the Event Provider (_applicationObject.Events.DebuggerEvents) is collected and Finalized, at which point the events just stop coming.

I wasn't sure if this was by design or not. However, I found this KB article: Visual Studio .Net events being disconnected from add-in, so I am going with it being by design.

Naming threads in Win32 And .Net

SteveJS — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:25:00 GMT

When you are debugging an application with multiple threads it can be handy to have a better name than just the thread id. This is simple to do in managed code. There is a property on the Thread object that you can set. It is also possible to do this for native code. However, there is simply no way you will ever discover it unless someone points you to the difficult to find docs. I knew about the feature and still missed the docs the first time I looked for them!

For completness, here is the managed version: Setting a Thread Name (Managed).

The more interesting one is the native version: Setting a Thread Name (Unmanaged) (There is a typo in the documentation's code; 'except' should be '__except'. I've included a corrected copy below.)

The native method of setting the thread name is implemented by raising an SEH exception that is continued. If you go to the docs on RaiseException you'll see part of the reason for this strange mechanism. An attached native debugger will get a 'first chance' notification of the exception. Raising an exception is precisely what you need to do to get the native debugger's attention. The one raised here (0x406D1388) is recognized by VS (and WinDbg).

Note: If anything in your process installs a vectored exception handler, that handler will not be called on this exception code when the VS debugger is attached. The VS debugger always handles this exception code and continues execution, preventing any further handlers. In WinDbg you can go to Debug/Event Filters and set the "Visual C++ exception" to be disabled. With that setting, your vectored exception handler will get a shot at 0x406D1388 while WinDbg is debugging it.

//
// Usage: SetThreadName (-1, "MainThread");
//
typedef struct tagTHREADNAME_INFO
{
   DWORD dwType; // must be 0x1000
   LPCSTR szName; // pointer to name (in user addr space)
   DWORD dwThreadID; // thread ID (-1=caller thread)
   DWORD dwFlags; // reserved for future use, must be zero
} THREADNAME_INFO;

void SetThreadName( DWORD dwThreadID, LPCSTR szThreadName)
{
   THREADNAME_INFO info;
   info.dwType = 0x1000;
   info.szName = szThreadName;
   info.dwThreadID = dwThreadID;
   info.dwFlags = 0;

   __try
   {
      RaiseException( 0x406D1388, 0, sizeof(info)/sizeof(DWORD), (DWORD*)&info );
   }
   __except(EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION)
   {
   }
}

FuncEvil, the Clipboard, and Deadlocks

SteveJS — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:22:00 GMT

Mike Stall has a great post that, for a debugger dev, is the moral equivalent of sticking a fork in a toaster. The basic problem he addresses is that once you are stopped in the debugger the UI for your application will no longer paint. What if you need to see something on that UI? If you like to live on the edge, Mike’s Evil trick to render UI when stopped at a breakpoint is the answer for you. Unfortunately, you need to be stopped on the UI thread for it to work. Pumping messages on another thread will not unblock the UI to paint. Even more unfortunate is that switching threads in the debugger won’t help. Function evaluation when debugging managed code requires you to be at a reasonable point on the thread. It is very unlikely you will randomly be at such a point, unless you stopped on the thread in question. You can see the result I got when I stop on another thread, then switched to the UI thread:

?System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("pump")

Cannot evaluate expression because a thread is stopped at a point where garbage collection is impossible, possibly because the code is optimized.”

Now don’t let this dissuade you from how useful this very, very, very dangerous trick can be. Sometimes playing with fire is useful.

Not rendering the UI is only one problem that can happen due to the debugger stopping a process. A really bad problem that lack of message pumping can cause is clipboard deadlock. The real problem is due to delayed rendering, which requires the app that copied to the clipboard to be live. You can read about delayed rendering on the MSDN Clipboard Operations page. The basic problem is that the application you are debugging owns the clipboard, and other apps need it to respond to messages to get the contents of the clipboard. You can see this by creating a trivial winform app with a button and a RichTextbox:

(Note you need to use a RichTextBox here … a normal TextBox will actually copy the contents to the clipboard rather than using delayed rendering.)

First set a breakpoint in the button handler. Then select the “Copy me at your own Risk!” text and copy it to the clipboard with Ctrl-C. Now hit the button. Nothing is wrong yet. However if you go to any application and hit paste that application is now hung, and will remain so until you continue from the breakpoint. If you hit paste in the debugger you’ll deadlock that too without any way to continue from the bp. Clipboard deadlock has hit me few a times composing mail while stopped at a breakpoint. Using the trick that Mike outlines does free the applications waiting for your winform app to provide the clipboard data.

If you do not understand why func eval is evil I must end by pointing you to Mike's older post Func-eval is evil, and GreggM's more recent post Func eval and System.Windows.Forms.Form. Func Eval is powerful, and with great power comes a bunch of power to shoot yourself in the foot. Be careful using func eval.

Change Debugger behavior with Attributes

SteveJS — Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:54:00 GMT

Certain metadata attributes modify the stepping, breakpoint, and callstack behavior of the VS managed Debugger. This is useful if you are creating an interpreter, language runtime, or a tool that modifies the code in a managed assembly. There are three flavors of these attributes that affect execution control. Each behaves slightly differently, and I always forget which does what, so I'm recording it here for my own reference as well.

The code below shows examples using all three attributes: DebuggerStepThrough, DebuggerHidden, and DebuggerNonUserCode. The example also shows the hidden line directive. I've inlined the explanation as comments in the code so it can travel with the example. This general area of writing tools that interact with the debugger has been well explored on Mike Stall's blog:

#line hidden and 0xFeeFee sequence points

How can I debug Just My Code?

Debug support for arbitrary state-machines

using System;

// This example shows the use of the three debugger attributes
// that modify the runtime behavior of the VS debugger.

// The motivating example is part of an AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming)
// implemenatation.
// The concepts around AOP are pretty interesting, but for this
// example it is sufficient to know that anything called a 'Thunk'
// is something added by the tool that is of no interest to the user.

// The example code is what a weaver that uses C# as a backend could
// send to the compiler to accomplish the hiding of
// JoinPointThunks, and the calls to those thunks.

// Try stepping through this with this option on:
// Tools/Options/Debugging/General/Enable Just My Code
// Then try the same with the option off.

// You'll see that each attribute creates a slightly different end user
// behavior and slightly different ease of debugging for yourself
// when you need to debug the glue code you are hiding from the user.

class DynamicallyAddedUserCode
{
    public static void bar()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Hello advice\n");
    }
};
class Weaver
{
    [System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThrough]
    public static void ExampleJoinPointThunk_withDebuggerStepThrough()
    {
        //_________________________________________________________________
        // Tools/Options/Debugging/Enable Just My Code ON:
        //CALLSTACK view: Frame is viewable
        //BP: Will hit bp.
        //STEPPING: Will not stop inside due to a step.
        // (Even from bp hit! Any step is a step out.)
        // Step in will land inside called methods.
        //_________________________________________________________________
        // Tools/Options/Debugging/Enable Just My Code OFF:
        //CALLSTACK view: [External Code] frame.
        //   Real frame is viewable by selecting 'Show External Code'
        //   in Callstack window.
        //BP: No bp will set or hit. A warning is provided,
        //STEPPING: Will not stop inside method (step in or step out)
        // A step in will land in called methods.
        //_________________________________________________________________
        DynamicallyAddedUserCode.bar();
        int thisGoesTo = 11;
    }
    [System.Diagnostics.DebuggerHidden]
    public static void ExampleJoinPointThunk_withDebuggerHidden()
    {
        //_________________________________________________________________
        // Tools/Options/Debugging/Enable Just My Code ON:
        //CALLSTACK view: Frame is completely hidden.
        //BP: A Bp will set with no error, but will not hit!
        //stepping: A Step in will land in called methods.
        //_________________________________________________________________
        // Tools/Options/Debugging/Enable Just My Code OFF:
        //CALLSTACK view: Frame is completely hidden. (i.e. No [External Code])
        //BP:Warning provided, no bp will set or hit.
        //STEPPING: Will not stop inside method (step in or step out)
        // A step in will land in called methods.
        //_________________________________________________________________
        DynamicallyAddedUserCode.bar();
        int thisGoesTo = 11;
    }
    [System.Diagnostics.DebuggerNonUserCode]
    public static void ExampleJointPointThunk_withDebuggerNonUserCode()
    {
        //_________________________________________________________________
        // [Same as normal code.]
        // Tools/Options/Debugging/Enable Just My Code ON:
        //CALLSTACK view: Normal view, callstack is viewable.
        //BP: A bp will set and hit.
        //STEPPING: Step as normal.
        //_________________________________________________________________
        // [Same as Debugger StepThrough]
        // Tools/Options/Debugging/Enable Just My Code OFF
        //CALLSTACK view:[ External Code] frame.
        //   Real frame is viewable by selecting 'Show External Code'
        //   in Callstack window.
        //BP: Warning provided, no bp will set or hit.
        //STEPPING: Will not stop inside method (step in or step out)
        // A step in will land in called methods.
        //_________________________________________________________________
        DynamicallyAddedUserCode.bar();
        int thisGoesTo = 11;
    }
};
class Program
{
    static void foo()
    {
#line hidden //this emits a Sequence Point with line = 0xFeeFEE
        //Imagine these hidden areas were added dynamically
        Weaver.ExampleJoinPointThunk_withDebuggerStepThrough();
#line default
        int theone = 1;
#line hidden
        Weaver.ExampleJoinPointThunk_withDebuggerHidden();
#line default
        int volume = 11;
#line hidden
        Weaver.ExampleJointPointThunk_withDebuggerNonUserCode();
#line default
        int answer = 42;
    }
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        foo();
    }
}

// The #line hidden directive places 0xFeeFee sequence point in the line
// information. The 0xFeeFee sequence point tells the debugger to continue
// stepping. It is not necessary unless a step can end at the location.
// If you are writing a compiler and emitting your own debug information,
// then it is often possible to simply omit the line info for code that would
// be marked hidden. If you decompile the above code with ILDasm /Linenum you
// will see an example of that strategy.
// However there are cases where it is important to use the a hidden sequence
// point. Any place where a branch instruction lands must use a hidden sequence
// point if you do not want the debugger to stop there.
//
// The motivating example for this is having all exit points from a Try block
// branch to a single leave instruction. If you produce that type of codegen
// you will need to use 0xFeeFee to create reasonable stepping behavior.

Netmodules: Sort of like a lib

SteveJS — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:19:00 GMT

I first ran into netmodules before VS 2002 was shipped. The netmodule gave me precisely what I asked for, without actually solving my problem. I wanted to use multiple languages (C#, and C++ /clr) in a single assembly. It turns out a single assembly can be multi-module. Multi-module means a single .Net assembly is spread across multiple win32 dlls. What I really wanted was a single module assembly written in multiple languages. Netmodules couldn't solve my problem back then, but with the VS 2005 C++ linker they can now.

Check out JuFeng's articles for some more in depth coverage, and an explanation why you might want a multi-module assembly:

MultiModule Assemblies

Netmodule vs. Assembly

Since JuFeng's examples didn't show how to create debug info I thought I'd make an updated example here.

Here's a quick example with a multi-module assembly:

From the Visual Studio 2005 Command Prompt:

C:\blog\linkexample>vbc /target:module /debug+ b.vb

C:\blog\linkexample>csc /debug+ /addmodule:b.netmodule a.cs

C:\blog\linkexample>devenv /debugexe a.exe

Check out the modules window:

And the callstack window:

To get a single file assembly I'll need to recompile the cs file into a netmodule then use the c++ linker.

C:\blog\linkexample>csc /addmodule:b.netmodule /target:module /debug+ a.cs

C:\blog\linkexample>link /entry:fooCS.Main /out:theone.exe /subsystem:console /debug a.netmodule b.netmodule

C:\blog\linkexample>devenv /debugexe theone.exe

Now check out the modules window:

And the callstack window:

Post Mortems

SteveJS — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:18:00 GMT

I won the guess the murderer contest. Shai and I compete to guess who the real murderer is on Law and Order Criminal Intent. Last night we watched Sunday's two hour show. It's a toss up who wins, but one of us always gets it by two thirds of the way through. That's the point where the amount of time left means the current suspect can't be the real murderer, and typically there was only one other possible suspect. The more unlikely the suspect, the higher our certainty. That just makes for better TV.

This mechanism of diagnosis is not very helpful for figuring out real world problems. There is no way to use a Tivo to tell you everything will be resolved in the next 20 minutes. It does however have something in common with Post Mortems. A Post Mortem is where the team shines the bright light of 20/20 hindsight on all the decisions that were hard. This perspective is much like having the extra knowledge that everything will be wrapped up in 20 minutes. Things that were unknowns are now knowns. Those tough calls that could have caused problems, yet no problems appeared: obviously good decisions. Those tough calls that did cause problems: obviously we shouldn't do that again … duh!

Unfortunately these fantastic insights are entirely informed via knowledge not present at the time the decision was made. I'm certainly not saying that Post mortems are useless! It's just that after you've categorized the bad decisions and the good decisions you still need to synthesize some useful advice that does not require precognition to use properly.

On the other hand, making decisions based on what makes for good TV sounds like it could be fun.

Perf Awareness is not Premature

SteveJS — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 02:38:00 GMT

I've found myself adding a timer to each of the unit test frameworks I use so I can see how long my tests take. I am not trying to do anything complex. I just want to be aware of the perf. The same way pass and fail are visible, 1ms vs 90ms is visible.

Premature optimization rightly has a bad rep. Creating complex code where performance doesn't matter is a bad tradeoff. That's not what I'm doing here. I am not trying to code for perf. I'm trying to be perf aware. If the test is fast I'm certainly not going to use that as an excuse to start changing code. If it's slow, I know about it and I won't check in something that kills perf. Once you have a number, the real question is: How do you judge if it is fast or slow? The answer is a perf budget.

Rico Mariani has a great Designing for Performance post where he talks about using Perf budgets.

In the absence of a perf budget, spend your time getting a perf budget rather than mucking about with code. Once you have perf budgets, being aware of resource consumption makes it easier to see problems earlier. A perf problem is a bug. Fixing a bug before it gets into the source tree is always a good idea.

Tabs vs Spaces

SteveJS — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:10:00 GMT

Of course, there is only one answer to whether tabs should be allowed in a source file. The utility of one is just so obvious I'll simply avoid commenting on it. :-)

If you must wander from sources written with one convention to those written in another, you should definitely set Visual Studio (or whatever editor you use) to show whitespace as visible. You can change this in VS by going to Edit/Advanced/View White Space.

I also change the default color for visible whitespace to silver. Silver on a white background is unobtrusive, yet noticeable when there is inconsistency.

(Next time, I'll go into whether Big Endian or Little Endian byte ordering is better. :-)

More hours in the day

SteveJS — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:47:00 GMT

In the summer of '94 I sketched a design for my ideal 'mp3' player. I didn't spec the compression format. If I had, it would have been called a 'bit' player back then. I wanted a walkman replacement. However, the feature I most craved was understandable fast play, and rewind. My motive was to record all my lectures for a day, then listen to them later in fast play, thus creating more hours in my day.

In 'Digital Death Lab' class, my lab partner, Gio, and I had implemented fast play as our final project. Maintaining pitch is the hard part, you can toss pauses between words, but you can't just toss samples without making it sound like 'A Very Special Chipmunks Physics Lecture'. I see that Windows media player 10 has fast play. Does anyone know if mobile products expose it?

Do any mp3 players solve my 'more hours in the day scenario' for a mobile device?

Login fun

SteveJS — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:23:00 GMT

Jeff Atwood argues that the Login dialog should infer the username from the password: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000413.html.

That reminded me that many user's of XP home don't have a password, which is even simpler. If you are cringing at the thought of a blank password; Uncringe. The blank password is better than you think. By default, an XP account with no password does not allow remote login. See http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004/6/17.aspx for details.

Full Impact Dance Nostalgia

SteveJS — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:36:00 GMT

Shai is an artist in crunch mode, so I was a lone bachelor at the Dance Underground last night. Lindy Hop is my Performance-Art-Sport relaxation. Simple basics with a tentative newcomer, or stanzas of movement with a confident pro, are a joy after a long separation.

Back in the day, dancing five to six nights a week, I would fall into a dance rut. Along with other drones of dance I would shuffle into a room with Steven Mitchell to learn two things: I was far from as good as I thought, and yes there is an another horizon to explore.

Steven's workshops are cathartic. He tears you down and remakes you. You would fall to a depth of dispair during the middle of the workshop. Can I dance at all? But by the end you were a toddler Timothy Leary jumped up on sugar, paragliding to the summit of a Caucasus mountain ecstatic to Warren Miller your way toward an all night Blues party. One workshop would reveal a path to movement sharper than Dorothy Parker. Another would take your black and white view of connection, and not just add color, but transform it to a full motion Baz Luhrmann extravaganza in three dimensions with sea spray and strobe lights.

The secret was not teaching you something you didn't know. It was doing the most basic parts of what you know, differently and better. The despair felt midway was for a loss of grace. A stroll was now a stumble. Steven wants you to stroll differently. By the end you didn't just forgive Steven for making you clumsy. You adored him for teaching you to float.

Best of all: It would take months of effort before you actually got any of it right.

unread writer

SteveJS — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:03:00 GMT

I've never read a book by my favorite writer. Joss Whedon created the TV shows Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly. Now, he's created the movie Serenity. Orson Scott Card (also not bad in the writing department) says Serenity is the best sci fi movie he's seen. I thought it was incredible, but for me, my Mom's reaction was the most surprising.

My Mom is no breathless sci fi fan. I wasn't sure she would like it at all. She said it reminded her of seeing the original Star Wars. She doesn't think it was like Star Wars. Instead it was remembering the feeling of not knowing what to expect and finding something new and great in a movie.

Shai and I didn't get to experience it that way. We've watched the Firefly series on TV, then the entire series on DVD. The characters, and the writing were familar to us, but the result was still great. If you haven't heard of Firefly go see this movie. If you have, convince someone you wouldn't expect to be a fan to go see it with you.

Learning about Strengths

SteveJS — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:37:00 GMT

I knew he wouldn't read them, so I asked to borrow the two management books on Andy's ottoman. Ironically the books explained why I borrowed them, as well as why Andy didn't want to read them.

The books were "First Break all the Rules", and "Now Discover your Strengths". The first book explains what makes for an effective team, how to measure that, and touches on 'strengths'. The second book delves into details behind the 'strengths' idea. I am not a manger. I don't plan on becoming one. Why would I be interested in these books? It is one of my strengths. Actually it's a couple of them: (links to strengths are too gallup's strengthsfinder website)

Learner, Deliberative, Input, Intellection, and Relator

These five, in this order, are my strengths according to a very cool online quiz. (You must buy the 2nd book to take the quiz. Yes, I think it is annoying too.) What do these mean? You can find out in detail at gallup's website, but I'll go ahead and paraphrase here.

Learner means I like the process of learning. I like learning for it's own sake. The usefulness of what I am learning does not matter. I just enjoy the process.

I am so much a learner it is actually difficult for me to comprehend that anyone wouldn't enjoy learning. That is why not being a manager, and having no plans on becoming one had zero impact on my desire to pick up these books. It also explains why I bought and read more than 11 guide books on art when visiting Florence.

Deliberative means I am very serious and take a great deal of care in all my decisions and activities.

This explains why, before I even broached the subject of borrowing them, I made sure Andy didn't want to read the books. It also explains why writing this takes me forever.

Input means I crave to know more, and likely collect and archive information.

This is why I bought the books after having borrowed them. I was a little disappointed in this strength, because I think learner covers this. However I did carry those 11 guide books from Florence back home to Seattle. You could be a learner and simply use the library. I still have 5 bookshelves stacked 3 deep, after selling the books I didn't 'need' to Twice Sold Tales.

Intellection means I like to think. I am introspective and like intellectual discussions.

Do I get to have any strengths that don't mean the same thing? Maybe this test would give me different results if I took it later? These questions might not be posed by 'Gary' the input learner who didn't have intellection. That could be because the lack of intellection would mean it never crosses Gary's mind. However, it might be because Gary was lucky enough to get a top 5 strength that exposed a usefully distinct aspect of his personality.

This strength explains picking up these books, rather than say "Bass Wisdom". I am introspective, and I don't like fish. These books provide a different perspective for looking at one of my favorite topics … me. In the second book, I like the section on 'Managing people with X strength' more than the section that describes the strength. The 'how to manage' section gives greater insight into the practical effect of a strength.

Relator means I enjoy working with people where I have close and strong relationships.

This strength is about my dominate style of interacting with other people. I work well in a small well knit team.

I also bought the 2nd book for my wife Shai and had her take the test as well. Shai is

Activator, Maximizer, Command, Self-assurance, and Positivity

Activator means making things happen. (Let's stop talking and do it.) (Such as selling my stuff on Ebay.)

Maximizer means enjoying the process of taking something that works and making it much, much better.

Command means having presence. People strong in command take control and make decisions.

Self-assurance means having confidence in your decisions.

Positivity means having enthusiasm that is contagious.

Seeing the set of top 5 after taking the test is very strange. I picked likely strengths for both Shai and I before taking the test. The real results were completely different from my predictions. The test did much better than I did. It's almost spooky.

The general advice is to capitalize on your strengths and attempt to avoid your weaknesses. When you have a weakness you've identified, you should not attempt to 'train it' into a strength. It's a weakness because you don't like doing it, not simply because you are bad it. Instead you should make your weakness irrelevant.

As an example, if by some amazing stroke of bad luck I suddenly became a salesman, I'd find my relative clumsiness around meeting new people to be a major disadvantage. I could 'learn' the skills necessary to meet people (particularly since learning is my top strength). However, after an amazing amount of effort I still would never be as good as someone who had Woo as their top strength. On the other hand, if in my fictional sales job was a position based on handling a small number of longtime clients with complicated and rapidly changing needs, it's likely I'd be much better than the salesman that had Woo as their top strength. In that circumstance, the weakness is irrelevant.

Marcus Buckingham gives advice in the "One thing you need to know" about how to accentuate your strengths and minimize your weaknesses without needing to actually identify them. The book has at least 3 "One things" (4 if you are married). The 4 topics are "How to be a great leader", "How to be a great manager", "How to have sustained individual success", and "How to have a happy marriage." The answer's are really good … so go buy the book.

All three books give practical advice grounded in quite a bit of data. The great thing about the strengths test is how specific it is. An ordered set of 5 out of 34 strengths is more like your personality dna. However, this does require you to piece together the implications of how your strengths inter-relate all on your own. There are to many possible combinations for them to go into any depth about combinations.

It's hard to explain just how effective these strengths are as a tool for introspection. Over the course of writing this I have grabbed a bunch of books from my book shelf. Here are three: "Sin and Syntax", "Where does the weirdness go?", and "The Fiefdom syndrome". All of these books (Input) were related to some rather esoteric point that I wanted to pull in (Intellection), but later decided was straying too much from the topic (Deliberative).

Strengths still need the skills to back them. A skillful and deliberative writer will take the time to be concise. In my case being deliberative has me rearranging sentences into other sentences that are roughly just as bad. I need to reread "Sin and Syntax" and practice getting my thoughts into print quickly. Then I can then take yet more time and be concise.

One week only!

SteveJS — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 06:22:00 GMT

Eveyone seems to be leaving town for a week. Many are claiming to be enroute to some 'PDC' in LA. Yet suspiciously, this so called 'PDC' lasts precisely a week. A very fashionable week. Is this just coincidence? Or am I simply not in the loop?

Actually, my friend Daniel writes for About.com and is at New York's Fashion week. I believe GE has already considered the cross over potential for the crowds at these two conventions, but alas they are on separate coasts. One must choose. I know many people at work are going to LA. I can confidently say I'd rather be going to the PDC than fashion week. Those fashion week crowds can be dangerous! If you're lucky enough to be in LA for PDC, say hi to my work mates. Every single one of them is excited to talk to you.

Parse Error!

SteveJS — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:28:00 GMT

Ebay has an SDK. From the site: "Now Available: eBay SDK for Windows 3.0" My first thought: Who is still using Windows 3.0? Why would anyone make an sdk for it?

Back up. Reparse. It's the 3.0 Version of the eBay SDK. Ah ha! Interesting. This might be fun to play around with in VS Whidbey. I don't have an eBay account, as my wife Shai handles the selling of my stuff on eBay:

Shai: We need a new table for the microwave.

Me: What happened to my old kitchen table that was holding the microwave?

Shai: I sold it on eBay.

An eBay account appears to be a requirement to make any effective use the sdk. That seems reasonable to me so I try to sign up using my gmail account. The gmail address, however, is not good enough unless I cough up a credit card number. I don't want to give out a credit card number when my only goal is to play with an sdk. But there is an alternative! Ebay suggests providing an ISP, Company, or School email address. So instead I decide I'll go ahead and use my work address.

It won't accept my work address. It just plain doesn't think my work email is valid. Perhaps it's because it ends with @microsoft.com? Is that a red flag that someone is probably trying to scam the system? Very odd. So I use my alum email address instead (a much better idea anyway!) and now I have an ebay account. As luck would have it my wife just called.

Me: Do you have anything I can sell on eBay?

Shai: What!? (laughter) Why!? What have I sold recently that would make you want to sell my stuff on eBay?

Me: hmmm…. Shai items to sell?

Shai: Are you trying to think? Don't hurt yourself.

Me: How about your cactus?

Shai: (laughter) You are not selling anything!

Maybe I'll get back to actually trying out that SDK at some point…