Comments on: NotifyIcon context menus for both buttons in .NET (evolution of a hack)

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 08 May 2010 13:43:17 +0000

Superb just what i needed, must say the odd icon shown on the taskbar had me dumbfounded now works like a charm…

Keep up the good work

By: DonBeto97

DonBeto97 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:07:56 +0000

Here is the same code in VB.NET:

Private Sub notifyIcon_MouseClick(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.Windows.Forms.MouseEventArgs) Handles notifyIcon.MouseClick
        If e.Button = MouseButtons.Left Then
             notifyIcon.ContextMenuStrip = taskMenuStrip
             notifyIcon.GetType.GetMethod("ShowContextMenu", Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance Or Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic).Invoke(notifyIcon, Nothing)
             notifyIcon.ContextMenuStrip = contextMenuStrip
        End If
End Sub

By: Damien Guard

Damien Guard — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:58:51 +0000

This is true and I think Microsoft wanted to achieve just that with the Enterprise Library and Patterns & Practice blocks but for the most part missed the objective once again by delivering some incredibly abstract blocks.

[)amien

By: steve

steve — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:52:55 +0000

Maybe so, but IMO it just points to a poor set of priorities. Loads of resources are going into upgrading low-level components of C# and the like, whichi s nice and makes for good tech articles but at the end of the day is it really helping to get projects done? Yeah, it’s fun and exciting but real projects need large components that are mature, flexible, extensible and just work. Arguably as developers we don’t need a constant stream of language updates and low-level things, we need good software building blocks that adapt well to our needs and have a good shelf-life. IMO they’ve spent way too much time on cool gadgets and stuff that low-level programmers like to play with and not enough time on what’s actually useful for building large, real-world systems.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:32:38 +0000

I’ve long held the opinion that MS knows very little about writing well-structured software. My experience with all of their frameworks (although my exposure to .Net has been less so) has resulted in much hair-pulling. And most of the time looking at the MSDN articles on their recommended software structures made me wince – much of the time they appeared to be written by college graduates with no experience of long-term software development. The fact that .Net seems to want to ‘morph’ into a new form every 12 months with new whizzy developer gimmicks (like LINQ) rather than concentrating on a solid, incrementally evolving architectural base reinforces that opinion. Less discrete productising, more overarching, stable structure is the key to long-term design and they don’t seem to ‘get’ that at all.

Your principles on re-use agree with mine, and is one reason why our coding standard for Ogre say that you should never use the ‘private’ keyword (preventing access from subclasses). C++ doesn’t have a ‘sealed’ keyword but it’s equivalent to ‘final’ in Java, which again good coders are told never to use for anything except immutable constants. Recommending you make most classes ‘final’ in the first instance would have been laughed at by most serious Java developers.

This post reinforces my opinion that MS and .Net are still terribly ‘young’ in their attitude to software engineering. Whizzy language gimmicks pull in developers but it’s all for naught if you can’t deliver a good long-term framework.

By: Damien Guard

Damien Guard — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:59:23 +0000

I think it’s unfair to blame the whole .NET team. The CLR and language guys seem to be doing really good work – it’s just the attitude and inexperience of the framework guys that seems to be letting down the entire platform.

[)amien