|
Hi all,
i want to generate service from my application exe.
i want to generate such type of service that is never stop or in other words if any body stop this its start automatically.
please provide me help or guidance for this.
if possible please provide me any example.
thanks in regards.
To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream;
not only plan, but also believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i m creating service like this
SC_HANDLE hdlSCM = OpenSCManager(NULL, NULL, SC_MANAGER_CREATE_SERVICE);
TCHAR lpFileName[MAX_PATH+1];
GetModuleFileName(NULL, lpFileName, MAX_PATH);
Calling = lpFileName;
if (hdlSCM == NULL) return ::GetLastError();
SC_HANDLE hdlServ = CreateService(
hdlSCM,
ServiceName,
ServiceDisplayName,
STANDARD_RIGHTS_REQUIRED,
SERVICE_WIN32_OWN_PROCESS,
SERVICE_AUTO_START,
SERVICE_ERROR_NORMAL,
Calling,
NULL,
NULL,
NULL,
NULL,
NULL);
DWORD Ret = 0;
if (hdlServ == NULL) Ret = ::GetLastError();
CloseServiceHandle(hdlServ);
its create service succssfully.
but when i want to start service its not able to start service
its return this error code
ERROR_SERVICE_REQUEST_TIMEOUT
please help me for this.
To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream;
not only plan, but also believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Le@rner wrote: its return this error code
ERROR_SERVICE_REQUEST_TIMEOUT
Inside the service itself, did you set the flag indicating it has completed its startup i.e. set the status to SERVICE_RUNNING in a call to SetServiceStatus? If you don't, you will get this error when you try to start the service.
Service Info[^] contains lots of service info, including samples.
Judy
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors - and miss.
Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love" by Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, in my aplication using VC** 6.0 , there are two buttons ( + and -) they controls the value of 16 different edit boxes. It's working, but now i want that if you press and hold one these two buttons the value on their respective edit box increases until you release the button. From the help, i read that you can do this using GetState(), with this mask 0x0004, but i can't get it works. here is some code
void CCalibracionDlg::OnBUTTONmas()
{
unsigned int BotonHold=0;
char incremento;
BotonHold=0x0004 & m_Button_mas.GetState();
while (BotonHold != 0)
{
incremento=1;
Decremento_Incremento(incremento);
BotonHold=0x0004 & m_Button_mas.GetState();
}
}
this is the code for button "+" . I hope i've explained it well.
|
|
|
|
|
Why you dont use of CSpinButtonCtrl Class?
Of one Essence is the human race
thus has Creation put the base
One Limb impacted is sufficient
For all Others to feel the Mace
(Saadi )
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your answer , but if use CSpinButtonCtrl class , i only be able to control one edit box (his partner control) , and want to control one between 16 edit boxes ( the one who has the focus)with the same pair of bottons + and - . am i right ?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry i'm not in VC but as a C-Programmer (kind of) I would suggest:
Create a function/method Scroll() that has 1 argument with value 1 (meaning spin down) and -1 (meaning spin up). Intercept the mousebuttondown-message. When the mouse is down, call Scroll() and set a timer such that when it goes off Scroll() is called again. Intercept the mousebuttonup-message. When the mouse is up set the timer off - that's it.
If you also intercept the mousewheel-message you can then reroute those to your Scroll() - The user can use the mousewheel to spin.
I'm sorry i don't have the code, or maybe better options, but i hope it helps...
Rozis
|
|
|
|
|
I have an application I am trying to move from VC6++ to VC++ 2008. It is an MFC application based on Jan Axelson's USB code.
The application that was built with VC6 runs fine with no problems or errors. I am upgrading it to VC++ 2008 a couple of functions at a time. When I run my VC++ 2008 application I see the following messages:
Endpoint 0 found The data area passed to a system call is too small
HidD_GetAttributes: The data area passed to a system call is too small
Master Cell PIC24 found
CreateFile: The data area passed to a system call is too small
Handle to Endpoint Out found
The message identifiers (Endpoint 0, HidD_GetAttributes, CreateFile:, Handle) are messages that I created. However, the message "The data area passed to a system call is too small" is coming from a system call to GetLastError.
I do not get the warning messages with the VC6++ version of the application. The 2008 version appears to be connecting to my USB device (I will know for sure after I add a few more functions) and it runs with no errors. However I am concerned about the too small warning.
Here is one of the calls that gives me the message:
DeviceHandle=CreateFile
(detailData->DevicePath,
0,
FILE_SHARE_READ|FILE_SHARE_WRITE,
(LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES)NULL,
OPEN_EXISTING,
0,
NULL);
if(!DeviceHandle)
{
DisplayLastError((CString)"Endpoint 0 not found");
}
else
{
DisplayLastError((CString)"Endpoint 0 found");
}
As you can see by the "Endpoint 0 found" message in the list of messages, the CreateFile call finds the handle to the device. However, DisplayLastError returns the "too small" warning. The function DisplayLastError performs a system call to GetLastError and does some other small tasks.
Does anyone know what I must do to eliminate the message from GetLastError?
|
|
|
|
|
GetLastError return value probably refers to last failed API call (not to CreateFile call: it succeedes).
You should call GetLastError only when a API function fails.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CreateFile is an API call:
HANDLE WINAPI CreateFile(
It is in the Microsoft list of API functions.
|
|
|
|
|
That's not the point. GetLastError returns valid information from the last API call that failed; you're interrogating it when the last call succeeded. Not surprisingly, it returns gibbersih.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
OK, do you have any suggestion as to how I find where the message is coming from? I have a dialog based form that has nothing on it except a list box for the messages and a button to find my HID device when I click the button. So I put this code as the first 2 lines in my OnBnClicked function:
SetLastError(0);
DisplayLastError((CString)"Button Clicked Function: ");
This is what the result is:
Button Clicked Function: The data area passed to a system call is too small
Is it possible the call to DisplayLastError is causing this due to the CString cast? Here is that code:
void CHIDTest2008Dlg::DisplayLastError(CString Operation)
{
LPVOID lpMsgBuf;
USHORT Index = 0;
CString strLastError;
FormatMessage(
FORMAT_MESSAGE_ALLOCATE_BUFFER |
FORMAT_MESSAGE_FROM_SYSTEM |
FORMAT_MESSAGE_IGNORE_INSERTS,
NULL,
GetLastError(),
MAKELANGID(LANG_NEUTRAL, SUBLANG_DEFAULT),
(LPTSTR) &lpMsgBuf,
0,
NULL
);
strLastError = Operation + (LPCTSTR)lpMsgBuf;
strLastError.TrimRight();
Index = m_ResultsList.InsertString(-1, strLastError);
ScrollToBottomOfListBox(Index);
LocalFree(lpMsgBuf);
}I have no function calls in my BOOL CHIDTest2008Dlg::OnInitDialog(). And the debug window shows no errors when I run the application.
This same code runs without the error messages when compiled with VC6++.
|
|
|
|
|
The most likely cause is the FormatMessage call - I see you're using FORMAT_MESSAGE_ALLOCATE_BUFFER and a Size of 0
From MSDN "If FORMAT_MESSAGE_ALLOCATE_BUFFER is set, this parameter specifies the minimum number of TCHARs to allocate for an output buffer.
so you arnt supplying it with a minimum number of characters
.. so maybe this is what is producing the message - but as the others have already pointed out, to call DisplayLastError() if the call to CreateFile actually succeeeded is pointless anyway.
I think your DisplayLastError() function is incorrect if you intend calling it unnecessarily like this - but if you insist, you could call and store the result from GetLastError() in a DWORD, then test the stored value to see if it's 0 (zero) or not, if it is 0, then you can actually return/exit DisplayLastError or set a hardcoded string eg 'No Error'. If it's NOT 0, then you use the stored value, do the FormatMEssage etc
'g'
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it. GetLastError returns valid information only when the API call immediately preceding it fails. If the call preceding it succeeds, the information returned is meaningless.
So what do you do with your two lines of code? Call SetLastError, which, in all likelihood, succeeds; then you call GetLastError.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
Garth, I tried setting the buffer size to 2048 and 4096 but that didn't make a difference. This code is from Jan Axelson's USB code and it works in VC6++ without allocating a buffer size. I did find out that if I turn Unicode off and set it to MBCS the warning messages all disappear.
LunaticFringe, for those two lines of code I was just testing to see if the call to SetLastError would then make an immediate GetLastError call return success. But that didn't work.
Almost all of the GetLastError calls will be removed once I have the application running properly. I just put them in there for test purposes as I am developing the application.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry about the buffer size - the GetLastError code snippet was lifted from the same MSDN page Garth referenced, down near the bottom of the page. The 0 for minimum buffer size is fine.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, January 15, 2010 8:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
LunaticFridge,
Thanks for your help. I understand what you are saying about GetLastError. And reading Microsoft's documentation about it makes it seem even less useful. It may be helpful like you say if you already know the API call is failing.
The few places where I want to be aware of failure I put something like this in:
if (DeviceDetected == FALSE)
DisplayData("Device not detected");
else
DisplayData("Device detected");That way I know for sure what the results of a call are.
Again, thanks to you and the others for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
LunaticFringe wrote: That's not the point.
Very well said.
LunaticFringe wrote: GetLastError returns valid information from the last API call that failed; you're interrogating it when the last call succeeded. Not surprisingly, it returns gibbersih.
That's not completely true.In spite of the function name (GetLastError), when a API call succeedes, it often sets last error to 0. Hence, when a API call succeedes and GetLastError is different from zero, the odds are that it refers to an error occurred in a previous API call. That, however, doesn't change the prescription: "use GetLastError just when a API call fails".
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
As L u n a t i c F r i n g e already noted, that's not the point: since CreateFile does NOT fail, hence GetLastError is reporting an error coming from a previous API call (which one?!).
Your approach to error handling is wrong: you've to:
- First and always check
API return value. - Then (if the
API call failed) call GetLastError to retrieve additional information.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: First and always check API return value.
Then (if the API call failed) call GetLastError to retrieve additional information.
which is what I said - I think - maybe convoluted (just been drinking French Red wine I bought back from my last trip)
come sta Carlo ?
'g'
|
|
|
|
|
Garth J Lancaster wrote: come sta Carlo ?
Bene, grazie!
E tu?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: E tu?
Non c'è male, grazie
|
|
|
|
|
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
