.NET & Funky Fresh - All Comments

re: Help Save King’s Quest!

Rob Eisenberg — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:13:54 GMT

I don't know all the details related to IP, but I imagine it has to do with Character names, places, etc. Some have suggested that they could simply rename things. Others have doubted that they could do that legally since the plot is tied to the original games. Who knows, but I would really like to see their work released. They've put a tremendous amount of effort into it.

re: Help Save King’s Quest!

Alex Simkin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:34:07 GMT

Excuse my ignorance, but what IP or patent that Activision has actually covers that prvents this game from being released? The game is not even called King's Quest.

re: Help Save King’s Quest!

Alex Simkin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:33:16 GMT

Excuse my ignorance, but what IP or patent that Activision has actually covers that prvents this game from being released? The game is not even called King's Quest.

re: Help Save King’s Quest!

TomR — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:21:40 GMT

"I plan not to have anything to do with Activision until they make this right. I hope you will join me in this. "

Well, if you don't play many games, that might work out. If you do play a lot of games, good luck with that.

I've tilted at my own windmills - I've been boycotting Sony (all of it) since the rootkit debacle, what, 10 years ago? But as an avid PC gamer, swearing off Acti-Bliiz-Vendi would be akin to swearing off water. Or public roads.

I don't deny it's a rotten move, and I do think IP law in the US is completely off the rails, but it's a rock and a hard place sort of proposition, in my opinion.

re: Help Save King’s Quest!

Darren Kopp — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:49:30 GMT

Activision is a bunch of dickheads. First what they did w/ InfinitiWard and now this.

re: MVVM Study Part 5: Convention over Configuration

Rob Eisenberg — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:49:49 GMT

I will get around to the hierarchical models eventually :) Right now I'm preparing for Mix10. My talk at Mix will encompass content I've blogged about so far in this series as well as additional content, which will eventually make it into this blog. Though I may not explicitly discuss hierarchical VMs in the presentation, the sample will demonstrate some practical applications of this.

re: MVVM Study Part 5: Convention over Configuration

Alexander Sedov — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:06:52 GMT

Hello Rob,

I'm still waiting for your post about View Model composition and Hierarchical View Models :) It's a realy interesting thing.

re: Caliburn Silverlight Navigation Walkthrough: Introduction

Rob Eisenberg — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:35:55 GMT

@Robert

Thanks for pointing out that odd behavior. That's either a bug in the sample or in the framework. I will look into that and get it fixed.

re: Caliburn Silverlight Navigation Walkthrough: Introduction

Robert — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:23:23 GMT

Hi Rob, thanks for the awesome sample app! I look forward to diving in more deeply.

I did notice an unexpected behavior when I first ran it:

Clicking on the currently-active view (initally Bar, but it doesn't matter which) causes the "Are you sure you want to navigate away from this page?" message to appear, even though you aren't actually navigating away from it.

How can/should I avoid this message? Disable the currently active bar item?

Robert

Silverlight Cream for January 18, 2010 -- #782

Community Blogs — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:26:43 GMT

In this Issue: Rene Schulte , Jim Wightman , Michael Wolf , Karl Shifflett , Braulio Diez , Walt Ritscher

Social comments and analytics for this post

uberVU - social comments — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:30:45 GMT

This post was mentioned on Twitter by EisenbergEffect: Blogged: Caliburn v1.1 Release Candidate Available! http://bit.ly/77h7tL

re: Please Vote For My Sessions at Mix :)

Rob Eisenberg — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:48:04 GMT

Oops. I guess I should have been more clear. This is a vote for the opportunity to give these presentations at Mix. I haven't actually given them before. If I do present them at Mix, there will be video of the m available afterwards.

re: Please Vote For My Sessions at Mix :)

Gabriel — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:54:04 GMT

Is there a video recording of those sessions you did?

re: MVVM Study Part 5: Convention over Configuration

Miguel Madero — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:42:51 GMT

I'm using this in Silverlight and works perfectly. Nice approach.

I was thinking on integrating it with an IoC, but usually my views are constructed in XAML, so the IoC is only constructing the ViewModels but don't know about the views to bind both together.

This is one of the reasons I'll deviate from this approach.

I'm thinking on using DynamicProxy to create a normal DelegatingCommand Property and the binding manually. The change isn't that different, the VM developer will still just create the CanExecute property and the Execute method, but the View instead of having a name that matches the command it will use Binding to set the Command Property.

This will also allow us to use other CommandSources.

re: MVVM Study Part 5: Convention over Configuration

Miguel Madero — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:41:43 GMT

It's a shame that we can't bind to dynamic objects in Silverlight. I hope this change in a future release.

Rob, your captachas are really cool, but can't be used from iPhone :(