|
STW wrote:
I use the MethodInfo Invoke() Method. The Invoked Method is a drawing routine.
Is it right that the MethodInfo Invoke() Method is extremly slow?
Someone once said that if you need to ask how big is the cost of Reflection, you can't afford it.
But there are much faster alternatives, like interfaces or delegates.
Acting as a substitute for God, he becomes a dispenser of justice. - Alexandre Dumas
|
|
|
|
|
I explained my scenario to Eric Gunnerson. Hope you could help me to find a faster solution with interfaces.
Thank you!
Stefan
|
|
|
|
|
Can i access a function from a file which is not in an active project in a workspace????
Meaning, if i have 11 projects in a workspace and i want to access a function from a project that is currently not set as active one, can i do that?
|
|
|
|
|
If it is a DLL, yes, just add a reference in your current project. When the window pops up, select the .NET tab and "Browse" for the dll.
Rocky Moore <><
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I'm trying to bring to top an application. I followed several examples that I've founded but it doesn't work.
I have the instance of my application registered in the computer and I have access to it via Remoting. I've got a method (ShowMyWindow) that I want to call to show the main window of my application:
public void ShowMyWindow()
{
if (IsIconic(hWnd))
{
ShowWindowAsync(hWnd, 3);
}
SetForegroundWindow(hWnd);
}
Now, for example, I've got a instance of my application running in my computer and I try to execute another one from the console. I obtain the already running instance and execute the ShowMyWindow method. The problem is that the result of this is I've got the console window on top and the icon of my application flashing in the task bar (I want to show it a the top of my screen!!!!! ) Instead, if my application is minimized, it works.... Any suggestion???
Thanks,
Iván Fernández
|
|
|
|
|
Did you try BringWindowToTop instead of SetForegroundWindow ?
"...hasn't really been well accepted ... as the ratings tell us so far " - Nishant S
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I tried but it doesn't work anyway...
Iván Fernández
|
|
|
|
|
It's strange, because "The BringWindowToTop function brings the specified window to the top of the Z order"
"...hasn't really been well accepted ... as the ratings tell us so far " - Nishant S
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone here used the Reflector program by Lutz Roeder? I just downloaded it yesterday and started toying around with it and found that it contains a decompiler. I wanted to know if it's actually that easy for a program written with .NET to be decompiler to it's original source. I tried it on one of my own programs and it outputs the code exactly as I typed it. I find that to be slightly disturbing.
- monrobot13
|
|
|
|
|
Well you kinda proved it to your self
This has been a big complaint about .NET in general. If you really want to make it harder for people to do this you can use some of the obfuscators out there. Alternatively, you could use MC++ to wrap native classes that you write.
-Nathan
---------------------------
Hmmm... what's a signature?
|
|
|
|
|
Since Java came in, we entered a new ERA, the Managed code ERA. At first it can look disturbing but at the end of the day you need to measure up what you can affort to be developing. I particularly like the way C++ still handling things, just look at Windows Forms and MFC, you can not compare them. MFC if far more stable ! However how long does it take to develop an application in MFC and another in .NET, furthermore how long would you take to work out portability of Unmanaged apps instead of Managed ones.
I have embraced .NET completely but i still want to keep C++ under the belt now, just like when I was embracing Java.
<Yoda>
The shroud of the managed code has fallen...Hmmm.hmm....
</Yoda>
Cheers,
ES
PS: Look into www.remotesoft.com, and have a look at their obfuscator and decompilers.
|
|
|
|
|
I still think Java out does c# however
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Can anyone please tell me a link to some kind of documentation on how to use the Regex class? How to make the pattern, group names and the other stuff?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot. It was exactly what I needed
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, everyone.
Has anyone made an example of ListView so that user can drag item up or down in the list..
I want to make this function, however, the visual effect looks bad.
I hope when I drag an item, the item has a little effect (like window default drag effect), any body can help me? ...
Thank you !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hm... this a not bad example.
However, I hope to the effect of Drag&Drop is much clear.
is making own control the only way?
Any other good example the drag effect is much clear ?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
How can I auto gen my code into code behind when I drag and drop myWebControl in to .aspx ?? show me the way how to do it
thanks!!!
Nho'c ti`
|
|
|
|
|
How do I turn off dynamic versioning?
/\ |_ E X E GG
|
|
|
|
|
When you say dynamic versioning, do you mean the auto increment of build and version numbers? If so you can turn this off by acessing the projects AssemblyInfo.cs file. There'll be a section that looks like:
[assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.*")]
Just remove the star and set it manually and your away. If you don't mean this then sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to ask a question related to this.
Right now my code looks like:
[assembly: AssemblyVersion("1.0.0.0")]
But I have versions like 1.0.1300.27939, anyway! That's fine with me, actually, since I wanted to have build numbers included, too -- it seemed like that would make sense to have some sort of subminor version. So I'm really confused where it's getting "1.0.*" from...
The funny thing is, if I set the assembly version to "1.0.*", then I build a new installer (setup.msi), and it won't install! It only installs when assembly version is set to "1.0.0.0".
And then, it's a really minor thing, but when browsing C:\Windows\Assembly, I see that the System assemblies have different Versions vs. Assembly/Product versions (which seem to be the same in the Properties dialog). And I don't see how to set that -- perhaps it's set by an Installer?
What's the reasoning behind having it be major.minor.build.revision, anyway? Doesn't it make more sense as major.minor.revision.build?
|
|
|
|
|
So I figured out the problem with my installer is that I'm using a custom installer, with included code:
Assembly VisITBarAssembly<br />
{<br />
get<br />
{<br />
return AppDomain.CurrentDomain.Load("VisIT, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=4d504ee06f99380a");<br />
}<br />
}
And so that probably fails if I use "1.0.*" in AssemblyInfo. Is there a way to get the above code to work if I set AssemblyVersion to "1.0.*"? I've tried some different attacks, and they've all been failing. I'd like to not have to change version numbers in 10 different places all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
The question of "What's the reasoning behind having it be major.minor.build.revision, anyway? Doesn't it make more sense as major.minor.revision.build?" is one that we are puzzling over.
From various articles posted around it seems that there are some Microsoft strategies such as maj.min.d.s (elapsed days since Feb 1 1970 and elapsed seconds since midnight) and other 'private' strategies of fixing the build and /or revision numbers.
We favour using maj.min.iter.build where for every build the last digit is incremented (1.2.3.4 goes to 1.2.3.5), and 'iter' is incremented when :|we move to the next iteration (Agile / Extreme). Whenever we move up any of iteration, minor or major numbers we reset the lower numbers to 0. E.g. If we have 1.2.3.4 and update the mojor number then the next full number will be 2.0.0.0.
|
|
|
|