Re: 70-316 : Question, the answer I'm not sure...

Discussion in 'MCAD' started by Hermit Dave, Dec 28, 2003.

  1. Hermit Dave

    Hermit Dave Guest

    Think if the parent is trapping the exception... you dont need to do
    anything.. cause if the current method encounters an exception and it is not
    handled... it will be passed to calling function if that handles the
    exception.. you are sorted...

    so i would go with
    A.
    this.Validate();

    --
    Regards,

    HD

    "Christian Ista" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > In a test, I have this question :
    >
    > You must ensure that any exceptions encountered by Validate are bubbled up
    > to the parent form. The parent will be responsible fo handling the
    > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum amount of code
    >
    > A.
    > this.Validate();
    >
    > B.
    > try{
    > this.Validate
    > }
    > catch(Exception ex){
    > throw ex;
    > }
    >
    > C.
    > try{
    > this.Validate
    > }
    > catch(Exception ex){
    > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    > }
    >
    > D.
    > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    > public MyException():base(){
    > }
    >
    > public MyException(string message):base(message){
    > }
    >
    > public MyException(string message, Exception inner):base(message,

    inner){
    > }
    >
    > }
    >
    >
    > The right answer is B right ?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    >
    >
     
    Hermit Dave, Dec 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hermit Dave

    john sermini Guest

    I think that you are both correct. It would be correct to say that if you
    don't trap the exception that the parent would catch it. But the questions
    states that you want the error to be bubbled up, so I think that implies
    that you want to catch the exception, and then re-throw it. So I think that
    B is the correct answer for the way that the question is worded.


    "Hermit Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:eqx$Z$...
    > Think if the parent is trapping the exception... you dont need to do
    > anything.. cause if the current method encounters an exception and it is

    not
    > handled... it will be passed to calling function if that handles the
    > exception.. you are sorted...
    >
    > so i would go with
    > A.
    > this.Validate();
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > HD
    >
    > "Christian Ista" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > In a test, I have this question :
    > >
    > > You must ensure that any exceptions encountered by Validate are bubbled

    up
    > > to the parent form. The parent will be responsible fo handling the
    > > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum amount of code
    > >
    > > A.
    > > this.Validate();
    > >
    > > B.
    > > try{
    > > this.Validate
    > > }
    > > catch(Exception ex){
    > > throw ex;
    > > }
    > >
    > > C.
    > > try{
    > > this.Validate
    > > }
    > > catch(Exception ex){
    > > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    > > }
    > >
    > > D.
    > > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    > > public MyException():base(){
    > > }
    > >
    > > public MyException(string message):base(message){
    > > }
    > >
    > > public MyException(string message, Exception inner):base(message,

    > inner){
    > > }
    > >
    > > }
    > >
    > >
    > > The right answer is B right ?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    john sermini, Dec 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hermit Dave

    Hermit Dave Guest

    Interesting... never thought of it that way... lol.... got my exam in 2
    days... will have to be more careful...

    --
    Regards,

    HD

    "john sermini" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > I think that you are both correct. It would be correct to say that if you
    > don't trap the exception that the parent would catch it. But the questions
    > states that you want the error to be bubbled up, so I think that implies
    > that you want to catch the exception, and then re-throw it. So I think

    that
    > B is the correct answer for the way that the question is worded.
    >
    >
    > "Hermit Dave" <> wrote in message
    > news:eqx$Z$...
    > > Think if the parent is trapping the exception... you dont need to do
    > > anything.. cause if the current method encounters an exception and it is

    > not
    > > handled... it will be passed to calling function if that handles the
    > > exception.. you are sorted...
    > >
    > > so i would go with
    > > A.
    > > this.Validate();
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > HD
    > >
    > > "Christian Ista" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > Hello,
    > > >
    > > > In a test, I have this question :
    > > >
    > > > You must ensure that any exceptions encountered by Validate are

    bubbled
    > up
    > > > to the parent form. The parent will be responsible fo handling the
    > > > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum amount of code
    > > >
    > > > A.
    > > > this.Validate();
    > > >
    > > > B.
    > > > try{
    > > > this.Validate
    > > > }
    > > > catch(Exception ex){
    > > > throw ex;
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > C.
    > > > try{
    > > > this.Validate
    > > > }
    > > > catch(Exception ex){
    > > > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > D.
    > > > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    > > > public MyException():base(){
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > public MyException(string message):base(message){
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > public MyException(string message, Exception inner):base(message,

    > > inner){
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > > }
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > The right answer is B right ?
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Hermit Dave, Dec 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Hermit Dave

    Guest Guest

    I answered the same question before in a previous
    post..Anyway let me type it again...

    You do not have to do anything to bubble up an exception
    to the calling code, which is the parent form in this
    case. Think it this way, When you get an exception in your
    code, and you do not handle it, CLR gives a message saying
    that there is an exception and what do you want to do with
    it, (i.e; Abort, Retry, Continue options). Here CLR is the
    parent code which invoked the assembly (exe in many
    cases) of your program, and your program caused an
    exception and it is never handled anywhere int he
    heirarchy of caling, so eventually the control comes to
    CLR which handles by showing that message to us..

    So the answer for the question is this.validate().. What
    you are doing in the second case is, you are handling the
    exception and then throwing it explicitly, even in this
    case the exception is bubbled up to parent form, but you
    are making it in two steps, which is unnecessary..

    You can also test with a code similar to the following,

    void parent_method()
    {

    try
    {
    childMethod();
    }

    catch(Exception e)
    {
    Console.WrtieLine("Child Exception caught);
    }

    }


    void childMethod()
    {
    this.Validate();
    }

    You would get the "Child exception caught" if this.Validate
    () generates an exception.. that means exception bubbled
    up automatically to the calling code..

    I hope i am clear enough..



    >-----Original Message-----
    >Interesting... never thought of it that way... lol....

    got my exam in 2
    >days... will have to be more careful...
    >
    >--
    >Regards,
    >
    >HD
    >
    >"john sermini" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >> I think that you are both correct. It would be correct

    to say that if you
    >> don't trap the exception that the parent would catch

    it. But the questions
    >> states that you want the error to be bubbled up, so I

    think that implies
    >> that you want to catch the exception, and then re-throw

    it. So I think
    >that
    >> B is the correct answer for the way that the question

    is worded.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Hermit Dave"

    <> wrote in message
    >> news:eqx$Z$...
    >> > Think if the parent is trapping the exception... you

    dont need to do
    >> > anything.. cause if the current method encounters an

    exception and it is
    >> not
    >> > handled... it will be passed to calling function if

    that handles the
    >> > exception.. you are sorted...
    >> >
    >> > so i would go with
    >> > A.
    >> > this.Validate();
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> >
    >> > HD
    >> >
    >> > "Christian Ista" <> wrote

    in message
    >> > news:...
    >> > > Hello,
    >> > >
    >> > > In a test, I have this question :
    >> > >
    >> > > You must ensure that any exceptions encountered by

    Validate are
    >bubbled
    >> up
    >> > > to the parent form. The parent will be responsible

    fo handling the
    >> > > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum

    amount of code
    >> > >
    >> > > A.
    >> > > this.Validate();
    >> > >
    >> > > B.
    >> > > try{
    >> > > this.Validate
    >> > > }
    >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    >> > > throw ex;
    >> > > }
    >> > >
    >> > > C.
    >> > > try{
    >> > > this.Validate
    >> > > }
    >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    >> > > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    >> > > }
    >> > >
    >> > > D.
    >> > > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    >> > > public MyException():base(){
    >> > > }
    >> > >
    >> > > public MyException(string message):base(message){
    >> > > }
    >> > >
    >> > > public MyException(string message, Exception

    inner):base(message,
    >> > inner){
    >> > > }
    >> > >
    >> > > }
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > The right answer is B right ?
    >> > >
    >> > > Thanks,
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >.
    >
     
    Guest, Dec 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Hermit Dave

    JM Guest

    Indeed and to add a point to anonomuus' post the question required the
    answer with the least amount of code. Therefore B is ruled out as long as A
    is correct...and it is.

    --
    Joe


    <> wrote in message
    news:00ea01c3cd88$083f0520$...
    > I answered the same question before in a previous
    > post..Anyway let me type it again...
    >
    > You do not have to do anything to bubble up an exception
    > to the calling code, which is the parent form in this
    > case. Think it this way, When you get an exception in your
    > code, and you do not handle it, CLR gives a message saying
    > that there is an exception and what do you want to do with
    > it, (i.e; Abort, Retry, Continue options). Here CLR is the
    > parent code which invoked the assembly (exe in many
    > cases) of your program, and your program caused an
    > exception and it is never handled anywhere int he
    > heirarchy of caling, so eventually the control comes to
    > CLR which handles by showing that message to us..
    >
    > So the answer for the question is this.validate().. What
    > you are doing in the second case is, you are handling the
    > exception and then throwing it explicitly, even in this
    > case the exception is bubbled up to parent form, but you
    > are making it in two steps, which is unnecessary..
    >
    > You can also test with a code similar to the following,
    >
    > void parent_method()
    > {
    >
    > try
    > {
    > childMethod();
    > }
    >
    > catch(Exception e)
    > {
    > Console.WrtieLine("Child Exception caught);
    > }
    >
    > }
    >
    >
    > void childMethod()
    > {
    > this.Validate();
    > }
    >
    > You would get the "Child exception caught" if this.Validate
    > () generates an exception.. that means exception bubbled
    > up automatically to the calling code..
    >
    > I hope i am clear enough..
    >
    >
    >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >Interesting... never thought of it that way... lol....

    > got my exam in 2
    > >days... will have to be more careful...
    > >
    > >--
    > >Regards,
    > >
    > >HD
    > >
    > >"john sermini" <> wrote in message
    > >news:eek:...
    > >> I think that you are both correct. It would be correct

    > to say that if you
    > >> don't trap the exception that the parent would catch

    > it. But the questions
    > >> states that you want the error to be bubbled up, so I

    > think that implies
    > >> that you want to catch the exception, and then re-throw

    > it. So I think
    > >that
    > >> B is the correct answer for the way that the question

    > is worded.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Hermit Dave"

    > <> wrote in message
    > >> news:eqx$Z$...
    > >> > Think if the parent is trapping the exception... you

    > dont need to do
    > >> > anything.. cause if the current method encounters an

    > exception and it is
    > >> not
    > >> > handled... it will be passed to calling function if

    > that handles the
    > >> > exception.. you are sorted...
    > >> >
    > >> > so i would go with
    > >> > A.
    > >> > this.Validate();
    > >> >
    > >> > --
    > >> > Regards,
    > >> >
    > >> > HD
    > >> >
    > >> > "Christian Ista" <> wrote

    > in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> > > Hello,
    > >> > >
    > >> > > In a test, I have this question :
    > >> > >
    > >> > > You must ensure that any exceptions encountered by

    > Validate are
    > >bubbled
    > >> up
    > >> > > to the parent form. The parent will be responsible

    > fo handling the
    > >> > > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum

    > amount of code
    > >> > >
    > >> > > A.
    > >> > > this.Validate();
    > >> > >
    > >> > > B.
    > >> > > try{
    > >> > > this.Validate
    > >> > > }
    > >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    > >> > > throw ex;
    > >> > > }
    > >> > >
    > >> > > C.
    > >> > > try{
    > >> > > this.Validate
    > >> > > }
    > >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    > >> > > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    > >> > > }
    > >> > >
    > >> > > D.
    > >> > > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    > >> > > public MyException():base(){
    > >> > > }
    > >> > >
    > >> > > public MyException(string message):base(message){
    > >> > > }
    > >> > >
    > >> > > public MyException(string message, Exception

    > inner):base(message,
    > >> > inner){
    > >> > > }
    > >> > >
    > >> > > }
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > The right answer is B right ?
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Thanks,
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >.
    > >
     
    JM, Dec 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Hermit Dave

    Hermit Dave Guest

    Thanks guys... cleared a confusion in my mind...

    --
    Regards,

    HD

    "JM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Indeed and to add a point to anonomuus' post the question required the
    > answer with the least amount of code. Therefore B is ruled out as long as

    A
    > is correct...and it is.
    >
    > --
    > Joe
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:00ea01c3cd88$083f0520$...
    > > I answered the same question before in a previous
    > > post..Anyway let me type it again...
    > >
    > > You do not have to do anything to bubble up an exception
    > > to the calling code, which is the parent form in this
    > > case. Think it this way, When you get an exception in your
    > > code, and you do not handle it, CLR gives a message saying
    > > that there is an exception and what do you want to do with
    > > it, (i.e; Abort, Retry, Continue options). Here CLR is the
    > > parent code which invoked the assembly (exe in many
    > > cases) of your program, and your program caused an
    > > exception and it is never handled anywhere int he
    > > heirarchy of caling, so eventually the control comes to
    > > CLR which handles by showing that message to us..
    > >
    > > So the answer for the question is this.validate().. What
    > > you are doing in the second case is, you are handling the
    > > exception and then throwing it explicitly, even in this
    > > case the exception is bubbled up to parent form, but you
    > > are making it in two steps, which is unnecessary..
    > >
    > > You can also test with a code similar to the following,
    > >
    > > void parent_method()
    > > {
    > >
    > > try
    > > {
    > > childMethod();
    > > }
    > >
    > > catch(Exception e)
    > > {
    > > Console.WrtieLine("Child Exception caught);
    > > }
    > >
    > > }
    > >
    > >
    > > void childMethod()
    > > {
    > > this.Validate();
    > > }
    > >
    > > You would get the "Child exception caught" if this.Validate
    > > () generates an exception.. that means exception bubbled
    > > up automatically to the calling code..
    > >
    > > I hope i am clear enough..
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >-----Original Message-----
    > > >Interesting... never thought of it that way... lol....

    > > got my exam in 2
    > > >days... will have to be more careful...
    > > >
    > > >--
    > > >Regards,
    > > >
    > > >HD
    > > >
    > > >"john sermini" <> wrote in message
    > > >news:eek:...
    > > >> I think that you are both correct. It would be correct

    > > to say that if you
    > > >> don't trap the exception that the parent would catch

    > > it. But the questions
    > > >> states that you want the error to be bubbled up, so I

    > > think that implies
    > > >> that you want to catch the exception, and then re-throw

    > > it. So I think
    > > >that
    > > >> B is the correct answer for the way that the question

    > > is worded.
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> "Hermit Dave"

    > > <> wrote in message
    > > >> news:eqx$Z$...
    > > >> > Think if the parent is trapping the exception... you

    > > dont need to do
    > > >> > anything.. cause if the current method encounters an

    > > exception and it is
    > > >> not
    > > >> > handled... it will be passed to calling function if

    > > that handles the
    > > >> > exception.. you are sorted...
    > > >> >
    > > >> > so i would go with
    > > >> > A.
    > > >> > this.Validate();
    > > >> >
    > > >> > --
    > > >> > Regards,
    > > >> >
    > > >> > HD
    > > >> >
    > > >> > "Christian Ista" <> wrote

    > > in message
    > > >> > news:...
    > > >> > > Hello,
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > In a test, I have this question :
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > You must ensure that any exceptions encountered by

    > > Validate are
    > > >bubbled
    > > >> up
    > > >> > > to the parent form. The parent will be responsible

    > > fo handling the
    > > >> > > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum

    > > amount of code
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > A.
    > > >> > > this.Validate();
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > B.
    > > >> > > try{
    > > >> > > this.Validate
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    > > >> > > throw ex;
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > C.
    > > >> > > try{
    > > >> > > this.Validate
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    > > >> > > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > D.
    > > >> > > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    > > >> > > public MyException():base(){
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > public MyException(string message):base(message){
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > public MyException(string message, Exception

    > > inner):base(message,
    > > >> > inner){
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > }
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > The right answer is B right ?
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Thanks,
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > >
    > > >> >
    > > >> >
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >.
    > > >

    >
    >
     
    Hermit Dave, Dec 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Hermit Dave

    Guest Guest

    You are welcome.. glad to be help

    kumar
    >-----Original Message-----
    >Thanks guys... cleared a confusion in my mind...
    >
    >--
    >Regards,
    >
    >HD
    >
    >"JM" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Indeed and to add a point to anonomuus' post the

    question required the
    >> answer with the least amount of code. Therefore B is

    ruled out as long as
    >A
    >> is correct...and it is.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Joe
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:00ea01c3cd88$083f0520$...
    >> > I answered the same question before in a previous
    >> > post..Anyway let me type it again...
    >> >
    >> > You do not have to do anything to bubble up an

    exception
    >> > to the calling code, which is the parent form in this
    >> > case. Think it this way, When you get an exception in

    your
    >> > code, and you do not handle it, CLR gives a message

    saying
    >> > that there is an exception and what do you want to do

    with
    >> > it, (i.e; Abort, Retry, Continue options). Here CLR

    is the
    >> > parent code which invoked the assembly (exe in many
    >> > cases) of your program, and your program caused an
    >> > exception and it is never handled anywhere int he
    >> > heirarchy of caling, so eventually the control comes

    to
    >> > CLR which handles by showing that message to us..
    >> >
    >> > So the answer for the question is this.validate()..

    What
    >> > you are doing in the second case is, you are handling

    the
    >> > exception and then throwing it explicitly, even in

    this
    >> > case the exception is bubbled up to parent form, but

    you
    >> > are making it in two steps, which is unnecessary..
    >> >
    >> > You can also test with a code similar to the

    following,
    >> >
    >> > void parent_method()
    >> > {
    >> >
    >> > try
    >> > {
    >> > childMethod();
    >> > }
    >> >
    >> > catch(Exception e)
    >> > {
    >> > Console.WrtieLine("Child Exception caught);
    >> > }
    >> >
    >> > }
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > void childMethod()
    >> > {
    >> > this.Validate();
    >> > }
    >> >
    >> > You would get the "Child exception caught" if

    this.Validate
    >> > () generates an exception.. that means exception

    bubbled
    >> > up automatically to the calling code..
    >> >
    >> > I hope i am clear enough..
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > >-----Original Message-----
    >> > >Interesting... never thought of it that way...

    lol....
    >> > got my exam in 2
    >> > >days... will have to be more careful...
    >> > >
    >> > >--
    >> > >Regards,
    >> > >
    >> > >HD
    >> > >
    >> > >"john sermini" <> wrote in

    message
    >> > >news:eek:...
    >> > >> I think that you are both correct. It would be

    correct
    >> > to say that if you
    >> > >> don't trap the exception that the parent would

    catch
    >> > it. But the questions
    >> > >> states that you want the error to be bubbled up,

    so I
    >> > think that implies
    >> > >> that you want to catch the exception, and then re-

    throw
    >> > it. So I think
    >> > >that
    >> > >> B is the correct answer for the way that the

    question
    >> > is worded.
    >> > >>
    >> > >>
    >> > >> "Hermit Dave"
    >> > <> wrote in

    message
    >> > >> news:eqx$Z$...
    >> > >> > Think if the parent is trapping the exception...

    you
    >> > dont need to do
    >> > >> > anything.. cause if the current method

    encounters an
    >> > exception and it is
    >> > >> not
    >> > >> > handled... it will be passed to calling function

    if
    >> > that handles the
    >> > >> > exception.. you are sorted...
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > so i would go with
    >> > >> > A.
    >> > >> > this.Validate();
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > --
    >> > >> > Regards,
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > HD
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > "Christian Ista" <>

    wrote
    >> > in message
    >> > >> > news:...
    >> > >> > > Hello,
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > In a test, I have this question :
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > You must ensure that any exceptions

    encountered by
    >> > Validate are
    >> > >bubbled
    >> > >> up
    >> > >> > > to the parent form. The parent will be

    responsible
    >> > fo handling the
    >> > >> > > exceptions. Accomplish this goal by the minimum
    >> > amount of code
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > A.
    >> > >> > > this.Validate();
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > B.
    >> > >> > > try{
    >> > >> > > this.Validate
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    >> > >> > > throw ex;
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > C.
    >> > >> > > try{
    >> > >> > > this.Validate
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > > catch(Exception ex){
    >> > >> > > throw ("My Exception"ex);
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > D.
    >> > >> > > public class MyException:ApplicationException{
    >> > >> > > public MyException():base(){
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > public MyException(string message):base

    (message){
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > public MyException(string message, Exception
    >> > inner):base(message,
    >> > >> > inner){
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > }
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > The right answer is B right ?
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > > Thanks,
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> > >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >>
    >> > >>
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >.
    >> > >

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >.
    >
     
    Guest, Dec 28, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daren Hawes

    70-316 & 70-316 Any Tips?

    Daren Hawes, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
  2. kingski

    072-316 versus 070-316

    kingski, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    944
    UAError
    Nov 5, 2004
  3. Zadkin

    Wrong answer equals to a blank answer or not?

    Zadkin, Jun 23, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    784
    Cerebrus
    Jun 27, 2006
  4. payaqa
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    payaqa
    Sep 13, 2004
  5. Rick
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    321
    Consultant
    Aug 18, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page