Licensing - C# Discussion Boards

7-Jan-04 3:31

thomasa wrote:
Assert Failed:
|Actual <= GetSize()
At line 3659 of d:\builds\nt32_chk\multimedia\published\dxmdev\dshowdev\base\amfilter.cpp

This is debug information stored in the executable of checked (debug) builds, which means you're using the developer runtime instead of the retail runtime (not the reason for the problems, but the reason for the message). That path was the path of the source file on the original developer's (or build master's, most likely) machine.

I would say reinstall once more. To allow VS.NET to see the managed assemblies, first locate them (mine are in %SYSTEMROOT%\Microsoft.NET\Managed DirectX\v9.00.1126). Open the registry editor (regedit.exe) and add that directory to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\.NETFramework\AssemblyFolders, just like you see the other ones (in a subkey as the default value).

To make sure that the CLR finds them, on each assembly in that directory run gacutil.exe -i <AssemblyName.dll> (or use ngen.exe to build native - pre JIT'd - assemblies which will load faster).

Otherwise, ask on the appropriate newsgroup at news://msnews.microsoft.com[^]. It's not a bad newsgroup to use when developing DX apps anyway. You'll most likely find more specialized help than you would here. Blush | :O

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.21
GCS/G/MU d- s: a- C++++ UL@ P++(+++) L+(--) E--- W+++ N++ o+ K? w++++ O- M(+) V? PS-- PE Y++ PGP++ t++@ 5 X+++ R+@ tv+ b(-)>b++ DI++++ D+ G e++>+++ h---* r+++ y+++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Re: DirectX HELL fixed

thomasa7-Jan-04 23:40

thomasa

7-Jan-04 23:40

The problem was fixed by choosing Retail insted of Debug of DirectX runtime at the begining of the instalation of DirectX SDK.

Licensing

Den2Fly7-Jan-04 2:52

7-Jan-04 2:52

recently I posted a question regarding licencing commercial components

Den2Fly wrote:
2. How they give license and perform protective actions for such controls while if anyone purchase it can give the .dll to friends and they use it wihout any payment.

Mazy wrote:
Search for LicFileLicenseProvider class.

I studied the SDK documentation and quickstarts about the related classes but am a little confuzed: How can I generate valid .LIC files to be used in validation process by the LicFileLicenseProvider class?

Thanks

---
"Art happens when you least expect it."

Heath Stewart7-Jan-04 3:21

7-Jan-04 3:21

Okay, first of all - don't use the LicFileLicenseProvider class unless you use file contents that can't be changed or produced by a user; see my article at http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/xmldsiglic.asp[^] for a good way to do this.

Otherwise - like most commercial library companies do - derive from LicenseProvider and create your own provider that stores keys in the registry, validates over the Internet, or something that isn't easy to crack (everything can be cracked , it's only a matter of cost-benefits analysis comparing the worth of the data to be cracked vs. the cost of the resources to crack it).

As far as the files that are generated go, VS.NET automatically creates a .licx file. This simply has the fully-qualified type names of licensed components. You can - and VS.NET does during compilation - run lc.exe on that file to generates a valid .licenses file that must be named the same as the assembly (replacing .dll with .licenses, of course) and added as an embedded resource (using the /res param in csc.exe).

Den2Fly7-Jan-04 4:18

7-Jan-04 4:18

First I thank you Heath about suggesting implementing an inherited custom class which seems nice.

secondly, .licx file (which I coudn't figure out where it is generated and placed) and .licences files that you say are generated using lc.exe of .licx file, seems not the file that LicFileLicenseProvider class works with. look at this paragraph from Framework SDK 1.1 about LicFileLicenseProvider.GetLicense() method:

"At design time, the GetLicense method looks for a license file named myClassName.LIC, where myClassName is the FullName of the component to create. This file must be in the same directory as the .dll file that contains the component.

Next, this method checks the first line of the license file against a key specified in the IsKeyValid method. If the key is valid, this line is used as the LicenseKey."

what are these .LIC files and how to generate them?

---
"Art happens when you least expect it."

Heath Stewart7-Jan-04 4:53

7-Jan-04 4:53

As I was inferring before, if you are using VS.NET you don't have to worry about the .licx and .licenses files. VS.NET takes care of all this automatically but the licensed component MUST be included in the .exe assembly because the CLR only looks for the valid .licenses files for licensed components in the application itself. Otherwise, developers could get a valid license for one component, wrap it in a library, and distribute it to other developers thereby circumventing the licensing requirement!

The .lic file is the file that the LicFileLicenseProvider looks for. If you derive your own class, you can have it look for any file you want, but that is the default convention for the base LicFileLicenseProvider class. You need to decide what contents to put into it. That's where my article would come in handy for you (it's not bullet proof and is only meant for conceptualization). This is the file that developers could register with you to receive. You override IsKeyValid to determine if 1) the file exists, and 2) if the contents are correct (if you use my article, you'd check the signature to determine that nothing's been changed then check the value(s) and see if they match the computer configuration, like the computer name as an example).

Den2Fly7-Jan-04 5:31

7-Jan-04 5:31

Got it! thanks

I also studied your nice article, I guess I will design a custom licensing pattern based on your digital signature idea.

---
"Art happens when you least expect it."

Mazdak7-Jan-04 5:26

Mazdak

7-Jan-04 5:26

Heath Stewart wrote:
create your own provider that stores keys in the registry

You mean the SECRET key? Isn't that very bad place for that?

Mazy

No sig. available now.

Heath Stewart7-Jan-04 6:50

7-Jan-04 6:50

I never said SECRET key. Key is a pretty generic term. There's also public keys, you know. It's just an eval key, an encoded string or something that unlocks the application. I wouldn't recommend this mechanism, though. I referred him to my article about XML Digital Signatures as a viable alternative.

idle

Roger Alsing7-Jan-04 2:42

Roger Alsing

7-Jan-04 2:42

is there some way to get notified when a form/window /whatever gets "idle"

here is the scenario:

i have a datasouce which will raise events as soon as something changes in it.
i want to do some extra processing on the data once the datasource is fully filled.

when i fill my datasource , the datasource will raise events a couple of times untill it is filled.
so i cant do the processing when the events fire, since that would make it process unfinished data.

so what i would like to know if it is possible to get notified once the current thread/form/whatever is not doing any more work??

//Roger

Re: idle

Heath Stewart7-Jan-04 3:06

Try-Catch performance cost

7-Jan-04 3:06

See the Application.Idle event.

Den2Fly7-Jan-04 1:06

7-Jan-04 1:06

Hello,
I know using try-catch means a performance drop.
I wana know in which part or parts the drop actually happens, does it occurs only when catching an exception or even "trying" a block of code means a drop in comparisson to the same code not inside try block in situation that no exception occurs?

Thanks,

---
"Art happens when you least expect it."

Roger Alsing7-Jan-04 2:47

Roger Alsing

7-Jan-04 2:47

it will only cost you once the error occurs

Thank you so much -nt

Den2Fly7-Jan-04 3:52

7-Jan-04 3:52

nt

---
"Art happens when you least expect it."

leppie7-Jan-04 6:10

leppie

7-Jan-04 6:10

Exceptions are expensive inside intensive repeatitive operations. Avoid them at all costs!

leppie ::AllocCPArticle("Zee blog");
Seen on my Campus BBS: Linux is free...coz no-one wants to pay for it.

TuringTest17-Jan-04 20:48

TuringTest1

7-Jan-04 20:48

didnt i understand somewhere that foreach get implemented as a block which ends in an exception?

________________________________________

Gosh, it would be awful pleas'n, to reason out the reason, for things I can't explain.
Then perhaps I'd deserve ya, and be even worthy of ya..
if I only had a brain!