|
Many Windows functions require a standard LPTSTR, such as Registry and file functions (some file operations are not possible using CFile) and I see nothing wrong with using a CString allocated buffer for them, then using CString to manipulate the data.
Of course we all agree (I think) that it's ok to pass character data into a function using CString's implied "const char*" cast. If a function wants to write into a buffer, I make a real buffer and pass it in to them. I think this is a much safer coding approach. I know you and I can keep our calls to release buffer straight, but what happens when that shifty looking guy standing over there modifies our code? I don't know about you, but he looks lazy to me and I bet he hasn't carefully studied the CString docs. Maybe he's used to using (insert name of any other string class in the world), and makes the childish asumption that like them, CString won't just hand him a pointer that has a ticking time bomb attached to it. I trust you to keep it straight, but I don't trust him.
Remembering to call ReleaseBuffer is no more a problem than having to remember to call delete or free on dynamicly allocated memory (which you'd have to do for the functions I mention, since you wouldn't know at runtime how much memory they take until you query them). In my opinion, once you've called GetBuffer(), you no longer have CString object available to you. Forget it exists until you've called ReleaseBuffer.
You have put your finger on the essential evil of GetBuffer much better than I. You're exactly correct! Once you call GetBuffer you no longer have an object! GetBuffer defeats the whole purpose of object oriented programming!
I have nothing more to say on this subject, excuse me while I get back to a "goto" argument on another forum. 
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
GetBuffer doesn't defeat the purpose of OO programming. In fact, it does exactly what auto_ptr does when you assign one auto_ptr to another. It basically gives you ownership of the memory until you're done with it. I'll agree that it doesn't enforce this (and it probably should, but it's too late to change that).
That's why i always use GetBuffer() and ReleaseBuffer() as close together as possible. Typically with a single operation between them.
char *p = s.GetBuffer(filesize);
ReadFile(handle, p, filesize, &bytesread, NULL);
s.ReleaseBuffer(bytesread);
is much cleaner, easier to maintain, and in my opionion safer than:
char *p = new char[filesize]
ReadFile (handle, p, filesize, &bytesread, NULL);
s = p;
delete [] p;
For starters, if you're worried about lazy and incompetant maintainers, there's lots to go wrong with the second. They might not know the difference between delete and delete []. the copying of the data can cause s to reallocate, possibly causing an allocation failure. But you won't know this until *AFTER* you've read the data, rather than before. So now you have to figure out how to unread the data and reposition the file pointer to deal with that. Also, this *REQUIRES* at a minimum, 1 delete and one new and one copy. The first example may not require any newly allocated memory if the CString buffer is already long enough, and if that's the case a copy won't happen either.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so what's with the holy war?
I haven't checked all messages in this thread,
so forgive me if this has been posted already.
Why not use something like:
class CStringBuffer
{
public:
CStringBuffer(CString &str, int len = 0)
: m_str(str) { m_buf = str.GetBuffer(len); }
~CStringBuffer() { m_str.ReleaseBuffer(); }
operator LPTSTR() { return m_buf; }
private:
CString &m_str;
LPTSTR m_buf;
};
to handle acquisition/release like
CString str;
CStringBuffer buf(str, 100);
sprintf(buf, "%s %d", "Whatever", 666);
I almost always use a wrapper class like that for API
pairs like GlobalLock/GlobalUnlock and such. Works great!
/sven axelsson, sweden
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is more dangerous in some ways than just using GetBuffer()/ReleaseBuffer() seperately. Consider this code:
CString s;
...
CStringBuffer buf(s, 100);
sprintf(buf, "%s %d", "Whatever", 666);
s = "something else";
sprintf(buf, "%s %d", "Whatever", 666);
Now, buf could well be pointing off into a dangling pointer.
I like to leave GetBuffer()/ReleaseBuffer() as close as possible together to avoid the possibility of this. Of course, this would be no different than reassigning a char * to new data, but because you hide it in a class, it's not quite so obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen that there is a way to remove the Application's button ( Windows )from teh task bar, but what about a Win32 Console Application?
Is there a way to have the application running but not have its button on taskbar?
vcprog
|
|
|
|
|
I derived a custom class from CDialog ( MFC ) and then I would like to associate the new class to my resources, instead of CDialog. Why is it not possible to add our classes to available list of MFC classes?
The way I get around this is to derive from CDialog and then later change them to CMyDialog. Later if I use classwizard it is smart enough to know that it is CMyDialog instead of CDialog, How?
Hope some one has worked on this issue. Do anyone of you know, how to associate a resource with a New Class that is derived from MFC?
vcprog
|
|
|
|
|
You can't because your class is not part of MFC per se.
The way to do it is exactly as you did. ClassWizard does not only work on MFC, but all classes. Of course it therefore knows what you changed the derived class to.
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
The following line will force to not have the default opened initial view on app statrtup, and it is OK.
<br />
cmdInfo.m_nShellCommand = CCommandLineInfo::FileNothing;<br />
But I need to size the view according to selection from the user from a dialog as follows:
BOOL CSizeView::PreCreateWindow(CREATESTRUCT& cs)
{
CSizeDlg sizedlg;
int result = sizedlg.DoModal();
if(result == IDOK){
cs.cx &= sizedlg.m_Height;
cs.cy &= sizedlg.m_Width;
MoveWindow(0, 0, cs.cy, cs.cx);
}
return CView::PreCreateWindow(cs);
}
But the above does not work! 
How can I fix it! Helps are apprecaietd! 
|
|
|
|
|
IT CAN'T work, because you're sizing the window in PRECreateWindow, BEFORE it is created. Go to OnInitialUpdate and size it there. For a dialog it would be OnInitDialog.
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Christian,
Thanks alot for reply! 
The following is still a problem:
void CSizeView::OnInitialUpdate()
{
CView::OnInitialUpdate();
CREATESTRUCT cs;
CSizeDlg sizedlg;
int result = sizedlg.DoModal();
if(result == IDOK){
cs.cx = sizedlg.m_Height;
cs.cy = sizedlg.m_Width;
MoveWindow(0, 0, cs.cy, cs.cx);
}
}
the desired sizes using the radio buttons are: 768x1024, 200x320, 480x640 & 600x800 or a custom option, which exist on the dialog and can be selected by the user when selected the new document from menu!
Another problem is when the view is resized, it again gets back to the default size as normal startup!
Thankx again! 
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean it resizes and then resizes again, or does not remember it's size ?
I admit I typed this response without trying it, I've just found you need also to do this:
GetParent()->MoveWindow(0,0,x,y);
at least in my program, which shows a bitmap to be edited in the view.
I'd suggest this:
CView::OnInitialUpdate();
CSizeDlg sizedlg;
if(sizedlg.DoModal() == IDOK)
{
MoveWindow(0, 0, sizedlg.m_Width, sizedlg.m_Height);
GetParent()->MoveWindow(0, 0, sizedlg.m_Width, sizedlg.m_Height);
}
I see no point in the extra variables you were creating, and you also had the width and height going in the wrong spots.
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
EXCELLENT! Thank you so much!
One more thing:
at least in my program, which shows a bitmap to be edited in the view.
As long as we are in the same pot, how about restricting the drwaing area to the same size. I mean even if the user maximizes the view, it still must remain the same drawing area as the desired size, but now it just maximizes it fully (resisez the area as well as the view!)?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean resizing the bitmap as well ?
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
no! just the view. To explain further, please visualize this scenario:
The user opens a new document from menu->new, the size dialog pops up, user selects a 320x200 pxls view and then PASTEs a captured image data of some window by either the print screen key or a CTRL+C keys from any other graphic app.
At this point, when the user PASTEs the image into my apps view as above mentioned with size 320x200, the image could be bigger than the rect area of my view! So I'd have to resize to fit the image! Right!
Suppose the image will be of size 380x380 pxls, then I would resize to fit it, but I do not want the remaining of the view (the white area) to show while the view is fully maximized, as well not to effect the size of the bitmap at all!
Something like whta the "MGI PhotoSuite SE" app does already!
Thankx again Christian!
|
|
|
|
|
I have a base class which I have derived from CPropertyPage, called CXXXPropertyPage. This class overides OnKillActive() in order to call a Validate() method in the derived class (pure virtual in CXXXPropertyPage().)
If I have multiple CXXXPropertyPages in a CPropertySheet, all is well and Validate() is called for all property pages in the sheet via the CXXXPropertyPages base class.
The problem occurs if I only have one CXXXPropertyPage in the CPropertySheet. In this case, we want to SetWizardMode() in the CPropertySheet in order to remove the tab from the top right of the property page dialog. If we do this, then OnKillActive() is no longer called in the CXXXPropertyPage base class. I have tried to hook in at other levels, but with no luck - WM_NOTIFY does not work, nor does anything else I have tried.
Surely a wizard has some hook to allow validation before changing page or calling OnOK. I have also tried OnWizardNext(), OnWizardBack() and OnWizardFinnish().
Can you help me, please!
Regards
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
The 'OnWizard...' functions should be what you are looking for. When Wizard mode is active, these are the functions called for validation. You return FALSE to tell MFC to ignore the request. That is, if the user clicks on the 'Finish' button then 'OnWizardFinish' is called, and you would return 'FALSE' if you did not want the dialog to close.
What exactly happens? Which button do you click ? Which of the the 'OnWizard...' functions is being called (or not called)?
Ian Kilmister
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ian,
I had tried all three OnWizard... functions. But I must have done something wrong. I tried OnWizardFinish again and it miraculously worked straight away!
Thanks again.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
hi
is it possible to get the handle to a submenu using the id of the menu item in the menu bar
thanks
subir
|
|
|
|
|
Popup menus don't have IDs, so you have to access them by their position.
HMENU hmenu = GetMenu(hwnd);
HMENU hFileMenu = GetSubMenu(hmenu, 0); // file menu is position 0
HMENU hEditMenu = GetSubMenu(hmenu, 1); // edit is 1, etc...
--Mike--
http://home.inreach.com/mdunn/
Is history an illusion caused by the passage of time, or is time an illusion caused by the passage of history?
|
|
|
|
|
I have my own class derived from CToolbar, and I want it to look like it's docked ( no caption bar, gripper on the left ) when it is floating. Can anyone suggest how I might achieve this ?
Thanks
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
I have my own class derived from CToolbar
Haven't tried it before! One idea would come to mind is what if you override the non client stuff, the WM_NC***** CWnd virtuals! and make your own codings!?
|
|
|
|
|
I have my own class derived from CToolbar, and I want it to look like it's docked ( no caption bar, gripper on the left ) when it is floating. Can anyone suggest how I might achieve this ?
Thanks
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Christian,
How are you!
I had this same thing in mind and I last tried it 2 weeks ago by overriding the default NC messages, but it seems it won't work! It actually works but the defualt stuff comes back! 
I tried to programicly float the toolbar and it works inbetween here! it draws the whole window+caption with my gradient filling colors!
Also tried to get the menu to delete the Close & Move items, assertions occur (violations in the DeleteMenu(xxx) stuff!).
I wonder/interested if you tried and had any good result with this! 
"Socrates is a man. All men are mortal.
Therefore Socrates is mortal."
-- Aristotle (syllogism)
Cheers
Masoud Samimi Go!
|
|
|
|
|
No, I'm still in a hell of my own making. I wouldn't mind a look at your code - my email is cgraus@isw.net.au if you feel inclined. I have got the move/close items to go before, but to be honest, I've not had time to look at it for ages, I was just thinking about it again last night. Maybe if no-one else knows how to do it we could collaborate and produce an article on the subject ?
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Christian!
I'd be happy to join forces with you!
I'll put together some clean code project (VC++6 SP3, Win98) and send you soon!
"Socrates is a man. All men are mortal.
Therefore Socrates is mortal."
-- Aristotle (syllogism)
Cheers
Masoud Samimi Go!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
