Modelio fixes the problem in implementing interfaces

The problem as reported in implementing an interface's properties has now been fixed. You can simply download the mdac (ModelingWizard_4.0.09.jmdac).

Modelling Template Method Pattern in Modelio UML

According to this post, Modelio (ver 2.2.0) has a very narrow definition of a type of class that can implement an interface.

For example, according the Modelio, you cannot use its "Modeling Wizard > Implement interfaces properties" to implement the interface method in Foo, because it is an abstract class:

I have yet to meet a programming language that places such a restriction. In C#, I have frequently implements an interface with an abstract class by implementing the interface methods as abstract methods.

You can still use Modelio (ver 2.2.0) to model the application of say Template Method pattern which often done with an abstract class like this

But you have to do some extra work:

1. If Foo is an abstract class, change it momentarily to non-Abstract class
2. Then use "Modeling Wizard > Implement Interfaces properties" feature to implement in interface method(s) in Foo
3. Change Foo back to abstract class
4. Add additional abstract method, including changing Bar() to abstract if that is required.
5. To implement the abstract Bar2Impl() in MyFoo class, Modelio does not have a convenient way like that in BoUML. However, you can use copy-and-paste the abstract method into the implementation class and changing it to non-Abstract method.

Do not use "Delete Interfaces Properties Implementations" feature in ver 2.2.0 as it has a bug that deletes all methods in that class.

Slaying AVG2012's False Positive identification of my program as Luhe.Fiha.B

After I upgraded to AVG2012 some times ago, it has been causing me grieves when it picks on my C# program as one infected with Luhe.Fiha.B virus/trojan.

It is a simple program to perform date calculations and nothing sophisticated.

I requested the source out from the repository and rebuilt it from ground up. Still, AVG continued to pick on me. I am convinced that I am right and AVG is wrong. So finally, I come to a head to prove AVG is deadly wrong and dumb - a view I have held for a long long time for Anti-Virus programs, not just AVG.

Finally I have managed to prove beyond doubt AVG2012 is just another one of those dumb scanners lacking any form of intelligence.

Their false negative is caused by 2 BMP images in the application's icon list which are not even used. Once I removed these two 'offending' icons from the image list, AVG fails to raise the red flag.

If you have a similar experience, try to remove artifacts from your .Net projects. If AVG is interested to get hold of this ico file I can e-mail you. Just contact me.

However, by itself, AVG fails to identify it as Lihu.Fiha.B infected even when I ask AVG to scan it. It has to be used as the application ico in the C# project file for it to trigger the rage of AVG.

Crazy idea - Razer mouse and cloud

It seems a day goes pass without some one becomes seduced by the cloud - just for something to store things is enough to be called cloud, totally crazy.

Now Razer Mouse has to be registered with its Cloud activation server before its full capability can be used.

I totally agree and sympathise with the author of this post in lambasting the Razer for their crazy unfriendly scheme.

Razer's Ming-Liang Tan's justification is every more questionable:

Instead of having mouse settings limited by the space in onboard memory, Synapse 2.0 allows gamers to now have almost unlimited space for their profiles and macros.

Do they really need unlimited space? Perhaps Razer should publish some survey or statistics to convince doubters. What's wrong with such thing as USB drive. How much memory are you talking about? 16G USB memory drive is as common as mouse attached to machines.

Why not have a SD Card slot into your Razer USB drive that the user can stash their settings into that.

While Razer is free to request their user to register but should not coerce, what I have found the order in the process some what unfriendly and draconian. Accord to Razer

Once registered, Synapse 2.0 works offline and never needs to be online again. So basically, a user creates an account, saves initial settings, and if there's no internet connection, it doesn't matter - settings are saved on the client PC and are not synced to the cloud. Synapse 2.0 works offline. 

If I have bought one of these mice, I will definitely be annoyed - what the hell Razer has a right to demand my e-mail address in order for me to use the full capability of their product. Why should I have to register & activated?

I guess by now their cloud server is full of fake information and disposable e-mail addresses for people just simply eager to dismiss the pest. I do that all the time after all it is a virtual world and honesty has not place.

Perhaps their developers have not considered their users' feelings properly. A much more user- friendly way is to reverse the order of the above mentioned process. That is:

• Let the user on to the settings program - regardless. They are already your customer and you have their money, mind you!
• On saving (I hope Razer has a way to save the settings) offer the user a choice, like all good user caring program does.
• If they choose to register, they have the benefits blah blah blah - do your Razer advertising to convince your user to go your cloud way - but don't coerce.
• Or the user can choose to store the settings locally on their USB drive etc.

I have to say, your current implementation is too draconian - this is the way take it or leave. Not nice and deserves the user's wrath.