|
Try using Marshal by value.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have any more details? I've tried setting SerializableAttribute on the enum. Is there more that is needed?
Thank you in advance for your help,
Clark L
|
|
|
|
|
I have a really frustrating problem, and some googling has revealed that I'm
not the only one. Its quite easy to reproduce:
1. Create a .Net C# project with a usercontrol and a forms application
2. Build the solution (debug) and add the usercontrol to the form's toolbox
3. Drag a usercontrol from the toolbox into the form
4. Close the form
5. Select the "Release" configuration
6. Open the form
Now the user control is gone with all its related code!
I know this is happening because the usercontrol .dll does not exist in the
release configuration, but is deleting sourcecode really expected behaviour?
Am I doing something wrong?
Christian Skovdal Andersen
Don't mention the war...
|
|
|
|
|
I am writing a program that interfaces with Flight Sim 2002 and 2004. I am writing this in .NET VC++ 7. I have one 100ms timer, and I am currently testing the program with only one funtion call. Every 100ms if a few variables are met the program accelerates the aircraft (writes a new velocity value to FS). That's the theory... in reality it only writes about once every 2-3 seconds or so. How can I make the program run faster, at a higher cpu priority, or whatever?
James Meade
vLT(jg) vUSN
vOPSOFF VAQ-140
|
|
|
|
|
Timers produce too much background activity, you can use a thread instead.
//replaces timer.Enabled = true;
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(timerMethod));
t.start();
//replaces timer_OnTick
private void timerMethod(){
doSomething();
Thread.CurrentThread.Sleep(100);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I am trying to use Raw Sockets in C# but without much success. I would like to create a server process using raw sockets allowing clients to connect as a TCP connection. However, I cannot seem to get clients to connect in this way.
A second thought I had was to set up a normal socket for the connection phase (The initial handshaking) then continue the communications with the Raw Socket. However this does not work either. The packet does arrive at the destination machine, however the client application doesn't seem to see it.
Does anyone have any ideas of what I should be doing?
Cheers,
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
I've just tried to rebuild a library that was created in Visual Studio 6.0 in .NET Enterprise Architect. I got the following error. 
Error C3861 GUID_NULL identifier not found, even with argument dependent lookup. Apparently the error is in the atlcomcli.h header file.
Any ideas? 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there,
I recently switches from VS 6 to VC++ .net, and found that the class wizard does no longer support to create CDaoRecordsets. I found some info on the net, but none explaining exactly why that is so and providing good alternatives. I am actually not developing .net applications, just doing some dialog based stuff with interaction to an MS Access databases.
So what would be the alternatives to CDaoRecordset and why is it no longer included ? Respectively, should I derive my CDaoRecordset classes for my database under 6.0 and then import them into the .net developer studio or will this have drawbacks?
thanks
ch
|
|
|
|
|
Don't go there.
DAO is a deprecated technology - we switch to ADO or for C++, you can use OLEDB. There are some spiffy ATL wrappers.
Generally, this will give you an 'as capable' system, and provide you with the possibility to upsize to SQL Server or ORACLE.
Steve S
|
|
|
|
|
Are there known performance issues when writing C++ code in .NET. I am working on a program that retrieves the data from MS Flight Simulator every 100 mS, but it doesn't seem to update but once every 3 or 4 seconds. I am having many issues with the window not completely drawing after being minimized (it comes back when I threaten to close it (right click on the taskbar icon)). I have heard there are performance issues with .NET that never seemed to be a prob in VC++ 6.0. Anyone know anything?
James Meade
vLT(jg) vUSN
vOPSOFF VAQ-140
|
|
|
|
|
Your problem is most probably with the type of a timer that you are using. And your redrawing problems are probably thread related. You should really be using threads and the Timer type provided in the System.Threading namespace. Also if you will be planning to update the UI of your application from the code running on another thread you need to be using Delegates as most of the methods of types in the System.Windows.Forms namespace are not thread safe. Post some of your code and people might be able to help you a little bit more.
|
|
|
|
|
Noticed something odd with this property of the ComboBox control. If the SelectedIndex is greater than zero and I attempt to set it to -1, the value instead changes to zero. If the value is already zero, it will change to -1.
Any idea why/how it behaves like this?
>>>-----> MikeO
|
|
|
|
|
Is it Windows forms or Web forms?
In Web forms selectedindex can never be set to -1 as the indexing starts with 0 always.
If it is windows forms can you post the code snippet?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everybody,
I am new in the .NET environment.
I developed Remoting components running on a desktop (with .NET *regular* framework)
I have a couple of industrial PDAs running Win CE .NET 4.1 that need to connect and use these 'desktop' components over a WLAN (wifi LAN).
Obviously the compact framework does not support Remoting.
What should I do? 
Any hint is highly appreciated ! 
Sincerely,
Bertrand
|
|
|
|
|
i was wondering what the code was to invoke a click event to highlight the item in the listbox when you right click. Im just using this to pull up a context menu but i want the item to be selected. Simple solution i hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Try this...
Private Sub ListBox1_MouseDown(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.Windows.Forms.MouseEventArgs) Handles ListBox1.MouseDown<br />
Dim item As Integer<br />
For j As Integer = 1 To ListBox1.Items.Count<br />
Dim rect As System.Drawing.Rectangle = ListBox1.GetItemRectangle(j - 1)<br />
If rect.Contains(e.X, e.Y) Then<br />
item = j - 1<br />
Exit For<br />
End If<br />
Next<br />
ListBox1.SelectedIndex = item<br />
End Sub
|
|
|
|
|
I heard a rumor on another message board that Internet Explorer 7 will require and redistribute the .NET framework. Any of you guys know if there's any truth to that?
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
When's IE7 coming out? Any details?
(Will it finally have tabbed windows like every other Web browser?)
|
|
|
|
|
I actually got this answered in another forum. To quote the guy who answered,
"I did some more research on this and while it appears to be true, it's misleading.
Yes, IE 7.0 will require .Net.
However, supposedly IE will no longer be released independently of operating system releases, or at least not in advance of them. So, we'll see IE 7.0 in Longhorn, but who cares? DotNet is part of Longhorn as is.
What I couldn't find a straight answer to was whether or not IE 7.0 will also be available for 98/2000/XP at the time Longhorn launches, or if users would have to upgrade to Longhorn to get it. The general consensus seems to be that MS will NOT release it as an individual release, and people will have to keep upgrading their OS to get better browsers, or use a different non-MS browser.
Thus, the spoils of winning the browser war. "
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's too bad, but I guess it explains why MS is in no hurry to release new versions of IE with feature enhancements, etc.
Too bad Mozilla is a way better browser than IE.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny - 98 will be out of support by then anyway (it should be already, but Microsoft extended it recently) - so no IE updates would be done for that anyway.
As for 2000/XP, if the next major revision of IE is built around the Longhorn technologies, IE would be implemented using Avalon and XAML and so forth - technology that wouldn't be ported to 2000/XP.
The current Longhorn preview actually has an IE version 6.05, and given the long lead time before it's due, there'll probably be an IE 6.5 or something in the interim (maybe late 04 or early 05), if only to tart up the current version and to prevent too much user haemoragging to Opera and Mozilla.
Ian Darling
"The different versions of the UN*X brand operating system are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 7, 2, 2.9, 3, 4.0, III, 4.1, V, 4.2, V.2, and 4.3" - Alan Filipski
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there will be a new version of IE released with Windows XP Service Pack 2. From what I hear, SP2 will be released sometime this year (I believe you can get SP2 in beta form right now, so a release this year is a safe assumption). So I'm assuming, then, that this new version of IE included in the service pack will be an interim version of IE, not IE7.
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
But it also then provides a chance for the other browsers to make a comeback at least until the time that everyone has Longhorn on their desktops. And by then who knows if MS will still own the desktop.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
And by then who knows if MS will still own the desktop.
Given the fact that the Linux camp is still having trouble deciding[^] on a standard windowing system, not to mention the fact that many tasks in most Linux distros can only be done via command line, or the fact that most Linux development is still based around the idea of "making it like Windows", I think it will be a long time before Linux is in widespread use on the desktop.
On the other hand, I do hope Mozilla catches on. IE needs a swift kick in the ass, that thing is still stuck in '90s, I never use it unless forced to. 
The graveyards are filled with indispensible men.
|
|
|
|
|
What compelling features does Mozilla have that IE doesn't? I've not used Mozilla but my impressions of browsers in the past have been.
1. IE was crap and virtually unusable from versions 1 to 3. Netscape was way better.
2. IE 4 was a bit better than Netscape 4.x.
3. IE 5.x was significantly better than Netscape 4.x. (I've not used Netscape since then.)
4. Opera 5+ had many compelling features that weren't in Netscape 4.x and not even in the latest versions of IE. Though IE was still better overall simply because you could view a wider range of sites with it. (I've not used Opera 7 though.)
5. I gather that Netscape 7 and Mozilla have at least some of those compelling features that Opera 5+ had.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
