|
Hi,
I have a native DLL exporting somes functions (__declspec( dllexport )).
I have converted the project in VS 2005... all work fine.
I try now to compile the project with /clr option.
All work fine.
But when I compile my other project (this project call functions from the native DLL)
(it's in native compiled in VS 2005 with /clr option),
when it link I got lot of error like this:
NodeRDTiff.obj : error LNK2028: unresolved token (0A00024C) "int __cdecl file_Close(void *)" (?file_Close@@$$FYAHPAX@Z) referenced in function "public: virtual void __thiscall CNodeRDTiff::ReleaseFile(void)" (?ReleaseFile@CNodeRDTiff@@$$FUAEXXZ)
But if I compile the first project without /clr, the second project will link correctly.
Someone can help me ?
Best regards,
===================
Martin Bonneville
Analyst-programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Go To->Project Properties->Linker->Input Screen
In the additional dependencies add msvcmrt.lib.
Check it out if it helps to solve the issue.
HV
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I added msvcmrt.lib to the dependencies of my 2 projects... I got the same error.
Best regards,
==========================
Martin Bonneville
Analyst-programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
The picture box in VB6 could be used as a container too but it seems like the one in .NET cannot be used as a container. Am I correct? If this is correct then why did MS remove this feature from the PictureBox? It was great when it acted as a container..
Thanks,
Bikash Rai
|
|
|
|
|
Bikash Rai wrote: but it seems like the one in .NET cannot be used as a container. Am I correct?
No, it is a container (see its .Controls property), but that is not it's primary purpose. If you need a control container, use a Panel control instead.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
But it cannot contain controls like the old VB6 way?? 
Bikash Rai
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about??
But, no matter what, the ultimate solution is for you to adapt to the situation and re-write your code a little bit.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: What are you talking about??
I think in Visual Basic 6, a picture box behaved very much like the Gourp box control, i.e. controls could be dragged and dropped in the Picturebox and etc. This is not possible in .NET.
---
With best regards,
A Manchester United Fan
The Genius of a true fool is that he can mess up a foolproof plan!
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's not possible to drag and drop controls into a PictureBox in .NET. It's a frickin' PictureBox control, not a GroupBox or a Panel! If you're going to do something, use the correct control for the job, not because "it used to work in VB6".
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I know it's not possible to drag and drop controls into a PictureBox in .NET. It's a frickin' PictureBox control, not a GroupBox or a Panel! If you're going to do something, use the correct control for the job, not because "it used to work in VB6".
Look sometimes situations arise wherein you wish special features existed and using the Picture Box is one of them. I wouldn't normally use a picturebox to group controls, but there are cases when you wished that it would. I guess you haven't come across one but believe me when you come across one, you would also wish the same. And I do know which controls are used for what purpose.
I was just getting an insight as to whether the PictureBox has the same functionality as it used to have in VB6. Not because I think a PictureBox is used to group controls...........
---
With best regards,
A Manchester United Fan
The Genius of a true fool is that he can mess up a foolproof plan!
|
|
|
|
|
Save My Soul - (SMS) wrote: Look sometimes situations arise wherein you wish special features existed and using the Picture Box is one of them.
Not in my opinion. It's too heavy a control to be used as just a Group Box.
Save My Soul - (SMS) wrote: I wouldn't normally use a picturebox to group controls, but there are cases when you wished that it would. I guess you haven't come across one but believe me when you come across one, you would also wish the same.
I have never and will never wish that a PitureBox control supported anything other than displaying an image, or any other control supported anything other than what it was written for.
If I need a control to support something, I either find a library that supports what I need or I write it! I never wish some other control supported what it wasn't written to do.
I've been writing code since 1976. Don't tell me "when you come acrossed ... you will". I've handled these situations hundreds of times.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Now this whole thing is getting outta hand. I just wanted to know if a picture box can group controls and look where this has landed me in. Dave, I am sorry if I said anything bad. I didn't mean to. And I am sure you are a great programmer. .... Peace Bro...
---
With best regards,
A Manchester United Fan
The Genius of a true fool is that he can mess up a foolproof plan!
|
|
|
|
|
Save My Soul - (SMS) wrote: I wouldn't normally use a picturebox to group controls, but there are cases when you wished that it would. I guess you haven't come across one but believe me when you come across one, you would also wish the same. And I do know which controls are used for what purpose.
If I ever came across such a situation I'd create my own custom control for the purpose. A PicutreBox is designed for displaying picutres not grouping controls. If the old VB6 way allowed you to group other controls inside its PictureBox then there was a very clear violation of the OO tenant of separation of concerns, which, in my opinion, would mean that it was very badly designed.
My: Blog | Photos
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: If I ever came across such a situation I'd create my own custom control for the purpose.
I will surely keep that in mind. Thanks..
---
With best regards,
A Manchester United Fan
The Genius of a true fool is that he can mess up a foolproof plan!
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone been able to locate a managed code RTP stack?
Looking to do some VoIP work (SIP) and will need one.
... and I would rather not roll my own if I would help it.
George Carlin wrote:
"Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the a**hole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
|
|
|
|
|
create dll whose code cannot be decoded by reflector
Anuj Kamthan
Software Developer
Solversa Technologies,
Pune - 411007, India.
http://www.solversa.com
|
|
|
|
|
use C++
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
|
|
|
|
|
Christian's right. Any of the Managed Languages, C#, VB.NET, Managed C++, ..., can all be decoded using Reflector.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Not 100% true. Some obfuscators generate code that Reflector just refuses to work with.
But in general every managed dll can be decompiled to IL easily (reading and understanding IL is another topic ).
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Rohde wrote: Some obfuscators generate code that Reflector just refuses to work with.
That's why those are also to be avoided. If Reflector can't look into the assembly, neither can Reflection, which some classes in the .NET Framework absolutely rely on to work.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
From what I have read, all managed modules contain Metadata which the CLR uses to execute the managed module. It is this Metadata which keeps information about the whole Managed Module. Also , reflection uses this metadata to dig out info about the methods in a managed module or assembly. And the most important part, MetaData is not Optional. It has to be there. So, it is impossible to create an assembly in .NET which reflection cannot access. Because, if reflection cannot access the assembly's metadata, even the CLR will not be able to execute it.
Hope this helps.
---
With best regards,
A Manchester United Fan
The Genius of a true fool is that he can mess up a foolproof plan!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I have a little problem that I need a clue on how to solve.
I have a system which hold a XMLDocument in a application variable. It's a large document, about 10-20 MB in size.
This document needs to be updated about every 5 minutes or so.
When a user request a page on the site, the system test if the XML doc needs to be updated. When it is so, then the request should somehow start the update, but not wait til it finishes, because it will stall the response time for user.
I have tried to create a new Thread, but that terminates when the request ends. So that no good.
I have tried doing response.flush, response.Close, and then update the XML document, but that gets the IE to hang never showing the request.
Please give me a new way to do it  And a Merry Christmas to you all :->
Best regars
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of a single large XML document, why not a bunch of small XML fragments that get recomposed at the client?
From the Churchdown Parish Magazine: "Would the Congregation please note that the bowl at the back of the Church, labelled 'For The Sick,' is for monetary donations only."
|
|
|
|
|
thats not possible, because I get the XML from an extern service, and have no control over how much I can get at a time.
So I need to download the whole document at once.
It is not the clientside the XML goes to. We store it in the application, to generate lots of different pages of that XML.
the XML is a big news feed, which updates every 5 minutes. And we need to reload it, so we can generate new cached pages every 5 minutes.
A page request finds out that the XML doc needs an update, but uses the old one to deliver the page, while starting a an update asynchron, and returns the result asap to the user, without waiting for the XMl loading to finish.
/Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Easy. You don't rely on a page request to kick off the update process. The web site should be concerned with delivering the most recent data possible to the browser, not for checking with another service to see if it's updated.
So, write a Windows Service to get the new data and update the XML file every five minutes. Maintain two copies of the data. One will be the last updated version, "production version", of the XML file that the web site will use. The other will be the "currently being updated" version of the file. Once the update is complete, copy the file to the production version.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
