Comments by Fran Porretto

Fran Porretto 4-Sep-13 8:23am View

"It's not the friendliest API to use."

Holy BLEEP! You hit that nail squarely on the head. Thanks; I'll see if I can muddle through it.

I've been introduced to the Remote Desktop Connection utility program that comes with 2003 Server. Is there a way to script the invocation of that program, perhaps through the WMI?

Fran Porretto 4-Sep-13 6:38am View

Apologies. This is all rather new to me.

My need is merely to get a logged-in session running on each of those workstations. Each workstation is configured such that a login causes the automatic startup of a preinstalled program. In other words, I have no need to interact with any of the workstations in any way, except for:

1. Compelling each of them to start a logged-in session;
2. Eventually compelling each of them to log out and terminate that session.

Are there other details to account for? If so, and if there are many such, is there an available reference work that covers this area, perhaps from Microsoft itself?

Fran Porretto 27-Jun-13 13:52pm View

Hm, I don't know. (Just in case I worded my question confusingly, the Win2003 Server environment from which the app is being ported is 32-bit, NOT 64-bit.) How would I check that?

Fran Porretto 24-Jan-12 7:04am View

Sorry! It really is syntactically correct; I just mistyped it. I'll correct it. (It's very early in the morning here.)

The error from ::SetCommState() is 995, which Microsoft translates as "Either a thread abort or an application exit has occurred." This DOES NOT HAPPEN when I use an RS-232 port with identical code.

Fran Porretto 24-Jan-12 7:02am View

Deleted

Oops! I should also correct the code above. Apologies! It's very early in the morning here.
<p>::GetCommState(hComm, &dcb);
<p>::BuildCommDCB("BAUD=19200 PARITY=N DATA=8 STOP=1 to=off xon=off odsr=off octs=off dtr=off, &dcb);

<p>It really is coded properly, as far as syntax goes. The error returned by ::SetCommState is 995, which Microsoft translates as "either a thread abort or an application exit." Baffling!

Fran Porretto 24-Jan-12 6:58am View

It throws the CUserException I set up for the failure of the ::SetCommState call.

No error occurs prior to that point. (I'm not really ignoring the possibility of a ::CreateFile failure. No error occurs there, nor at the ::SetupComm call.)

Fran Porretto 17-Aug-11 11:45am View

And it does. I had two problems: One was not knowing about the V7.0a SDK; the other was not realizing that I had to change the project-specified character set to "NOT SET." Thanks endlessly!

Fran Porretto 17-Aug-11 11:29am View

Orjan, you're a lifesaver. I was unaware that the appropriate SDK is OUTSIDE the Visual Studio 2010 tree of directories. With your help, I've found it and redirected the include and library paths for my test project to the appropriate places. It now compiles, links, and executes without errors.

The test project uses a handful of Win32 API calls that had been generating compilation errors. Now to see whether my MFC-using code will compile!

Fran Porretto 17-Aug-11 11:06am View

THANK YOU!! That's the sort of information I was hoping for. If I've received a .NET only distribution -- I didn't even know such a thing existed -- that would explain a great deal. I'll go to Microsoft and see what I can find there.

Thanks again!

Fran Porretto 16-Aug-11 15:21pm View

It's enough to make you crazy, isn't it? If I had any hair left before this disaster, I doubt I'd have it today!

Fran Porretto 16-Aug-11 15:13pm View

Chuck, if I had my way, I'd never leave VS V6.0. It's stable, I know it thoroughly, and it's served me very well. I have no need for any of the new features in VS.NET of any vintage, much less a particular need for VS 2010. I was commanded to move to VS 2010 by my management -- and you know the Manager's Motto: "Everything is easy, as long as I don't have to do it myself."

Fran Porretto 16-Aug-11 14:53pm View

1. I'm talking about source code that I need to compile and link: some into static libraries, others into large applications. 2. It's entirely unmanaged -- Visual Studio V6.0 was BEFORE the whole managed-code idea was introduced. 3. My work is all Real-Time, and highly critical "hard" Real-Time at that. I would never be allowed to use the managed-code approach; the overheads are too great.

Fran Porretto 16-Aug-11 14:48pm View

The code I'm working with is of several kinds:
1. A large collection of library routines, which are intended to be linked into a static library (.LIB type) for use by larger applications;
2. Several very large applications of various kinds, most of which are Real-Time and MUST use low-overhead unmanaged system services, rather than the "managed" variety.
3. A group of non-Real-Time utility programs that support the use of the large applications mentioned above.

Right now, I'm trying to port the first group (the big collection of library functions and classes). I'd have no qualms about defining a new project / solution for it, but I'm just about forbidden to change the compilable code itself.

The services used in these programs are either Win32 API services (basic kernel services and I/O services) or the Microsoft Foundation Class wrappers for them. VS 2010 doesn't even provide references to them in its integrated Help. I suppose that's because Microsoft wants us all to use the CLR from now on, but it's making my life rather difficult.

All my best,
Fran

Comments by Fran Porretto (Top 13 by date)