Simple .NET/ASP.NET PDF document editor web control SDK

Per Transaction Per Exec Per Call ----------------- ----------- ----------376.0 81.0

Redo NoWait %: Optimal W/A Exec %: Soft Parse %: Latch Hit %: % Non-Parse CPU:

Note More information on the functionality provided by .NET Reflection is available at http://

99.99 100.00 78.46 99.44 96.19

ssrs code 128, ssrs code 39, ssrs fixed data matrix, winforms pdf 417 reader, winforms qr code reader, winforms upc-a reader, c# remove text from pdf, find and replace text in pdf using itextsharp c#, winforms ean 13 reader, itextsharp remove text from pdf c#,

Top 5 Timed Events Avg %Total ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ wait Call Event Waits Time (s) (ms) Time ----------------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------ -----CPU time 13 91.7 log file parallel write 64 1 11 4.9 LGWR wait for redo copy 1 0 174 1.3 control file parallel write 7 0 18 .9 log file sync 6 0 6 .3 ------------------------------------------------------------The amount of CPU time is about 2 to 3 times the amount reported by the single-user test case.

The F# library includes the namespace Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection, which contains types and functions that extend the functionality of the System.Reflection namespace of .NET. These types and functions are described in 10.

Note Due to rounding, the 4 CPU seconds is really anywhere from 3 to 5, and the 13 is really anywhere from 12

Further, the amount of CPU used by two users with bind variables is far less than half the amount of CPU a single user not using bind variables required! When I looked at the latch report in this statspack report, I found there was so little contention for the shared pool and library cache that it was not even worth reporting. In fact, digging deeper turned up the fact that the shared pool latch was requested 67,462 times versus well over 2.3 million times in the two-user test without binds shown above: Latch Name Requests Misses Sleeps Gets -------------------------- --------------- ------------ ----------- ----------shared pool 67,462 1,950 4 1,946 process allocation 8 1 1 0

You can use the combination of .NET and F# reflection to provide generic implementations of language-related transformations. In this section, we give one example of this powerful technique. Listing 9-10 shows the definition of a generic schema reader compiler, where a data schema is described using F# types and the schema compiler helps convert untyped data from text files into this data schema. Listing 9-10. Using Types and Attributes to Guide Dynamic Schema Compilation open System open System.IO open Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection type ColumnAttribute(col:int) = inherit Attribute() member x.Column = col /// SchemaReader builds an object that automatically transforms lines of text /// files in comma-separated form into instances of the given type 'schema. /// 'schema must be an F# record type where each field is attributed with a /// ColumnAttribute attribute, indicating which column of the data the record /// field is drawn from. This simple version of the reader understands /// integer, string and DateTime values in the CSV format. type SchemaReader<'schema>() = // Grab the object for the type that describes the schema let schemaType = typeof<'schema> // Grab the fields from that type let fields = match Type.GetInfo(schemaType) with | RecordType(fields) -> fields | _ -> failwithf "this schema compiler expects a record type" // For each field find the ColumnAttribute and compute a function // to build a value for the field let schema = fields |> List.mapi (fun fldIdx (fieldName,fieldType) -> let fieldInfo = schemaType.GetProperty(fieldName) let fieldConverter = match fieldType with | ty when ty = typeof<string> -> (fun (s:string) -> box s) | ty when ty = typeof<int> -> (System.Int32.Parse >> box) | ty when ty = typeof<DateTime> -> (System.DateTime.Parse >> box) | _ -> failwithf "Unknown primitive type %A" fieldType

Table 6-1 summarizes the CPU usage by each implementation, as well as the latching results as we increase the number of users beyond two. As you can see, the solution using fewer latches will scale much better as the user load goes up. Table 6-1. CPU Usage Comparison with and Without Bind Variables

<Serializable()> _ Public Class CodeList Inherits NameValueListBase(Of Integer, String) End Class While the business developer does need to create a specific class for each type of name/value data, inheriting from this base class largely trivializes the process.

CPU (sec)/ Elapsed Time (min)