|
Hi everybody,
I have a simple application with a couple of dlls and an OCX.
I have created a standard installer, which works fine under administrator priviledges.
Problem is, when running under a "limited user account" (windows xp), i get a System.Security.SecurityException.
Do not understand why and all i get is a standard windows error reporting screen. it is not possible to install Visual studio on the machine i am testing on.
any ideas?
i have tried setting the register property of each of the Dlls to "COM", the OCX defaults to "COMSelfReg".
your thoughts and comments and much appreciated,
many thanks
Jonathan Harker
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect the limited user is not allowed to register the dll.
Christian Graus
Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you
"also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
|
|
|
|
|
just to note also on the machine i am testing, i am using an administrator account to actually perform the installation. then i am attempting to run on the limited account
thanks again
Jonathan Harker
|
|
|
|
|
If you could only get a hold on the "System" user account you'd be all set
To Christian:
LOL @ you still using that as your sig! ROFL
Christian Graus FTW!
It needs a link to the original post though
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
thanks a lot for your posts.
Just to let you know that the issue wasnt with the installer, but actually when the program was attempting to access the registry on load.
was getting Security.SecurityException because my program was attempting to access the "LocalMachine [HKLM]" Key. A quick change to "CurrentUser" resolved the issue.
Thanks windows error reporting [not]. actually took quite a few [several] hours to work this out
Thanks again guys
Jonathan Harker
|
|
|
|
|
jharker1987 wrote: was getting Security.SecurityException because my program was attempting to access the "LocalMachine [HKLM]" Key
jharker1987 wrote: hanks windows error reporting [not]. actually took quite a few [several] hours to work this out
One could also say the time it took you to find the reason resulted from poor error handling...
A simple try/catch around your registry accessing code would have done the trick.
Regards,
mav
--
Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...
|
|
|
|
|
Being a person who's never needed a listview until now (crappy open file dialog in windows mobile!!!!)
What is the best option of interacting with a listview that uses .CheckBoxes=true; list view showing files (this is in Windows Mobile 6)
This listbox is one that shows a list of offline created files and allows the user to select the ones they wish to upload to their web database.
1) Add an event for when as each item is checked, add it to a dictionary collection so you have an updated view at all times.
2) Let the user check away all the items to their hearts desire, then loop though the itemcollection searching/processing each one that has the property checked=true
3) Use delegates to point to diffrent functions in the procrssing script based if the list is long or short. If the number of files in the DirectoryInfo.GetFiles() is long add the "check" event handler else pint it to a loop though function.
4) Some other strategy
To me option one is attractive if there will be LOTs of options to select or if I needed to dynamically edit look at the contencts they have selected. (which I don't)
I think option two would make the UI interaction faster, but the processing longer as it looks though EVERY option in the list. Which would make it better if the list was always small.
The third option sure is "enterpriseish" but most likly be a waste of time to code :/
As to how many offline files the user will have? Beats me I wouldn't think "too" many... The thing is you never know with end users... They might save a years worth of data to upload "at once" for all I know/expect heh... (thus there is a max MB upload)
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
I'm building a modular application that dynamically loads assemblies from a predefined folder. These assemblies are modules that the application runs using an interface to access each module.
The main idea is a timer launches all modules that do some work.
The module interface defines an event which fires when the module is done working. The host application, prior to launching module's StartWork() method, registers a handler for the OnModuleDoneWorking event. Then it launches the module in a separate thread.
When the OnModuleDoneWorking event is fired, the host application collects the data from the module (which is passed as the sender object).
Here my problem begins, i need to know when all modules are done working so i can compile all of their data into a single report and send it.
I thought about starting another timer to monitor the status of all modules. Or maybe each time an OnModuleDoneWorking event is fired i can check the status of all modules, but this will be happening on the module 's thread and i don't want to launch the report method from a module thread.
I can also set a loop in the module launching method (the host timer event) but that will hold the main thread and a misbehaving module could mess everything up (this is a really ugly way to handle this).
If anyone has any ideas i'd be happy to hear.
thanks,
darthBug
Join the dark side of the code
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
there are many ways to do this. Here is one, maybe not optimal:
- have a single variable "runningModules" that gets incremented each time a module gets
started, and gets decremented each time a module finishes (have a look at Interlocked class);
- have a Windows.Forms.Timer that periodically watches the runningModules variable,
and starts the summary reporter when it reaches zero.
You can replace the periodic timer by an event mechanism that gets fired when the
counter decrements to zero. That takes some more code, but gives a cleaner design
Potential problem: a module might crash or hang, preventing the runningModules variable
from ever reaching zero.
Here is another one:
- have a collection of running modules; add to them on start, remove on dome;
- periodically inspect the collection; when empty report; when taking too long, try
to figure out if the module is still alive (you could add something akin an heartbeat
monitor in every module).
Warning: to be thread-safe, you should lock the collection when modifying it.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice answer. The only thing I think I could do differently in the first option is use an AutomaticResetEvent or a ManualResetEvent to specify a drop dead time, that way you can track which modules didn't complete as well as not worry about the decrement variable not reaching zero. And definitely use the Interlocked class. The second option would probably be more reliable. IMHO.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks guys, sound like really good ideas to try.
Scott, i read about the AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent but i don't understand what it does and how to use it in my case. Could you please give an example?
How does the event thing works in this case:
The host creates a new thread for the StartWork() method of the module class.
At the end of the method it fires an event which is handled by the host.
Now in this case as i understand the event handler is run in the module thread, am i correct?
What i thought about is to go with the collection idea first and add an event handler to the OnRemoved event (assuming there is one, otherwise i can build my own collection class). If the OnRemoved event is handled in the parent thread then this is perfect but otherwise it's a problem.
What do you think?
darthBug
Join the dark side of the code
|
|
|
|
|
Read the source code below. Not quite production, but you'll get the idea on how the ManualResetEvents work.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace ManualResetExample {
public class MockModule {
public MockModule(String name) {
Name = name;
}
public String Name { get; private set; }
private Object syncLock = new Object();
private EventHandler onDone;
public event EventHandler OnDone {
add {
lock (syncLock) {
onDone += value;
}
}
remove {
lock (syncLock) {
onDone -= value;
}
}
}
private void FireOnDone(Object sender, EventArgs args) {
if (onDone != null) {
onDone(sender, args);
}
}
public void StartWork() {
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(WorkThread));
}
private void WorkThread(Object arg) {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Thread.Sleep(250);
Console.WriteLine("{0} working", Name);
}
} finally {
FireOnDone(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
}
public class WorkCompleteEventArgs : EventArgs {
public WorkCompleteEventArgs(Boolean wasSuccessful) {
Success = wasSuccessful;
}
public Boolean Success { get; private set; }
}
internal class ModuleSyncBlock {
public ModuleSyncBlock(MockModule module) {
Reset = new ManualResetEvent(false);
MockModule = module;
}
public ManualResetEvent Reset { get; set; }
public MockModule MockModule { get; set; }
}
public class ModuleManager {
List<modulesyncblock> modules;
List<mockmodule> mocks;
public ModuleManager() {
modules = new List<modulesyncblock>();
mocks = new List<mockmodule>();
mocks.Add(new MockModule("One"));
mocks.Add(new MockModule("Two"));
mocks.Add(new MockModule("Three"));
mocks.Add(new MockModule("Four"));
mocks.Add(new MockModule("Five"));
}
public void StartAll() {
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(RunInternal));
}
private void RunInternal(Object arg) {
List<manualresetevent> manuals = new List<manualresetevent>();
mocks.ForEach(m => modules.Add(new ModuleSyncBlock(m)));
modules.ForEach(m => manuals.Add(m.Reset));
modules.ForEach(m => {
m.MockModule.OnDone += new EventHandler(MockModule_OnDone);
m.MockModule.StartWork();
});
if (WaitHandle.WaitAll(manuals.ToArray(), new TimeSpan(0, 0, 30), false)) {
FireOnWorkComplete(this, new WorkCompleteEventArgs(true));
} else {
FireOnWorkComplete(this, new WorkCompleteEventArgs(false));
}
}
void MockModule_OnDone(object sender, EventArgs e) {
ModuleSyncBlock msb = modules.Find(m => ReferenceEquals(sender, m.MockModule));
if (msb != null) {
Console.WriteLine(msb.MockModule.Name + " Finished");
msb.Reset.Set();
}
}
private Object syncLockA = new Object();
private EventHandler<workcompleteeventargs> onWorkComplete;
public event EventHandler<workcompleteeventargs> OnWorkComplete {
add {
lock (syncLockA) {
onWorkComplete += value;
}
}
remove {
lock (syncLockA) {
onWorkComplete -= value;
}
}
}
private void FireOnWorkComplete(Object sender, WorkCompleteEventArgs args) {
if (onWorkComplete != null) {
onWorkComplete(sender, args);
}
}
}
}
</workcompleteeventargs></workcompleteeventargs></manualresetevent></manualresetevent></mockmodule></modulesyncblock></mockmodule></modulesyncblock>
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Where do you guys (and girls) typically put the definition of an enum in your code? I have generally placed mine just inside the namespace instead of inside a class. It seems like the namespace is getting cluttered with enumerations.
Thanks for your comments!
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I typically create them in the namespace. I like having them seperated one class/enum per file so I can easily find them if I need to update them.
Broken Bokken
You can't carry out a ninja-style assasination dressed as an astronaut. It's the luminous fabric; too visible. - Tripod
http://www.brokenbokken.com
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I keep 'em the same way, one class per file and a bunch of enums in their own file under the same namespace.
darthBug
Join the dark side of the code
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea. Currently we just throw em at the top of whatever file they are needed at. It forces us to search through the code more. I'll have to look into that one file for enums idea.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, all in one file. I typically twiddle with enums much less, and it cuts down on the clutter in the project.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Guys. I am trying to match some input from a text box to an if statement. Now, I am doing this from following some ARL code and I get a build error. Error message is "Operator '>=' cannot be applied to operands of type 'string' and 'string'"
The ARL code looks something like this.
if ws_holder_pcode >= 4731 and ws_holder_pcode <= 6499
begin
move 1 to ws_holder_province
finish
end
What I have written in the button click event.
private void btnValidate_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (txtboxPcode.Text >= "4731" && txtboxPcode.Text <= "6499")
{
MessageBox.Show("Eastern Cape");
}
}
How can I do this correctly? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Excellence is doing ordinary things extraordinarily well.
|
|
|
|
|
To compare strings, try the String.Compare() method.
private void btnValidate_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)<br />
{<br />
<br />
if (String.Compare(txtboxPcode.Text,"4731") == 0 && String.Compare(txtboxPcode.Text,"6499") == 0)<br />
{<br />
MessageBox.Show("Eastern Cape");<br />
}<br />
}
Just because we can; does not mean we should.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks mate. I actualy want to check that the value entered falls in the range of 4731 and 6499.
KaptinKrunch wrote: if (String.Compare(txtboxPcode.Text,"4731") == 0 && String.Compare(txtboxPcode.Text,"6499") == 0)
I have tried the suggestion that you made but I keep getting "Invalid Pcode" message returned from the else statement meaning that I am not making a match. So, what I want to do is something like this.
if (txtboxPcode.Text >= 4731 && txtboxPcode.Text <= 6499)
{
MessageBox.Show("Eastern Cape");
}
Any further suggestions appreciated.
Excellence is doing ordinary things extraordinarily well.
|
|
|
|
|
You could change your strings "6499" to Int32's and convert the contents of your text boxes to int's by Int32.Parse(box.Text);
and don't forget to put in the IFormatProvider to the Parse method.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind too that your if logic is stating that your textbox value needs to equal both 4731 and 6499. If you need to match one or the other, change the operator to "||"(OR) vs "&&"(AND).
Just because we can; does not mean we should.
|
|
|
|
|
If the value entered falls within the range of 4731 and 6499 i.e. the user enters 5000 then a amtch is made. Maybe I am writing it wrong. If the value entered falls anywhere inbetween then we have match.
Excellence is doing ordinary things extraordinarily well.
|
|
|
|
|
private void btnValidate_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int pcode = 0;
if (int.TryParse(txtboxPcode.Text) == false)
{
MessageBox.Show("Invalid Integer!");
return;
}
if ((pcode >= 4731) && (pcode <= 6499))
{
MessageBox.Show("Eastern Cape");
return;
}
MessageBox.Show("Unknown Cape!");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: if (int.TryParse(txtboxPcode.Text) == false)
Thanx Ed.Poore. You however left out the out portion of the statment. I amended it to look like this and it worked fine.
private void btnValidate_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int pcode = 0;
if (int.TryParse(txtboxPcode.Text, out pcode) == false)
{
MessageBox.Show("Invalid Integer!");
return;
}
if((pcode >= 4731) && (pcode <=6499))
{
MessageBox.Show("Eastern Cape");
}
Thanks for the help mate. Greatly appreciated.
Excellence is doing ordinary things extraordinarily well.
|
|
|
|