Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    This is pretty much nothing but promoting someone's work. Could you add a relevant excerpt/algorithm -- i.e. answer the question -- or disclose any affiliation you have? Otherwise this is just fancied-up spam. Commented Apr 28, 2015 at 12:30
  • I would say that it's giving someone an answer by way of a pointer to an approach they may not be aware of. I've given the relevant link why should I need to add more? it's all in the references. And I'm sure Juval Lowy could describe it better than I could ever do :-) As for my affiliation - I bought the book! That's it. I've never met Mr Lowy but I'm sure he's a great chap. Knows a lot about WCF apparently ;-) Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 14:37
  • You should add more because presumably you read How to Answer before answering, and you noted the section that says "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline." Your affiliation isn't important. Only the quality of the answer is. Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 14:39
  • Fine. I'm not in it for the points - as you can probably tell from my score! Just thought it might be a useful pointer. Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 14:42
  • 1
    I'm not saying it's a bad pointer. I'm saying that, on its own, it's not a good answer. It may very well help people, and that's a good thing, but the answer will be better if you can describe the method he uses, rather than giving a very brief description of the classes involved. That way, on the occasion that the site can't be accessed -- for whatever reason -- your answer still helps. Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 14:44