|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: eading the entirety of RFCs 1034[^] and 1035[^] and completely understand all of it
In other words: Give up, and never more bother us with questions about it ...
|
|
|
|
|
No, I'm dead serious. You either understand the entire spec or you're writing a server that doesn't work with clients.
You have no idea how much work is going to go into this project. It's not something you're going to bang out in couple of weekends, and you're not going to get description of how to do it in a forum environment where that description would take a three volume set of books to write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How would you answer the question then?
You think telling someone to read the "spec", when they obviously haven't, is "harsh"?
How can you share a vocabulary when only one part speaks the language?
I'm ecstatic when there is a spec and I don't have to rely on someone's say-so or interpretation.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not answer questions if you are upset
|
|
|
|
|
What I am trying to do is insert a buttons name into part of a URL so that instead of C&P 300+ pieces of code for individual items that I can just use 1 piece of code for the many different Items.
This is what I am using currently
formname.txtURL.text = "www.webaddress.com.html"
What I want it to do is:
formname.txtURL.text = "www.webaddress.com/(buttonnamehere).html"
What I am missing the piece I need to add for (buttonnamehere) So when the button is clicked, it would make it
http://www.webaddress.com/buttonsnames.html
Is this something that's possible to do?
|
|
|
|
|
Try this:
Dim ButtonName As String
ButtonName = Button1.Text
formname.txtURL.text = "www.webaddress.com/" & ButtonName & ".html"
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so that would work for just 1 how would it also work for the other buttons on a Click statement?
Would it be just a mess of "If" statements? If Button2 then, If Button3, Then, etc?
|
|
|
|
|
How about:
In the click handler, you have the sender argument, correct? Put code into the click handler that casts the sender argument to a button object and grabs its Text property. And set every button to use that one click handler.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a service that will perform some kind of action depending on what the SessionChangeDescription is. The service is installed on a computer that autologs in. To make this happen this registry value needs to be set and is set during OnStart:
Key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon
Value: AutoAdminLogon
Data: 1
There is a Windows Form that will allow a domain user to log in and the service will change the AutoAdminLogon value to a 0. When a power outage occurs and power is restored the PC, the computer does not autologon cause the registry value AutoAdminLogon is not set back to a 1 yet. I normally just send a logoff, tsdiscon, or restart to the computer through SCCM and it will autolog again. These are my questions:
1. Is it possible to logoff or disconnect a session through the service at a logon screen?
2. Is it possible to trigger one of the SessionChangeDescription without any session changes?
3. Restart the computer through the service?
What I have tried:
At OnStart, get the AutoAdminLogon value and if it a 0, then do one of these:
ExitWindowsEx function, WTSDisconnectSession function, wmi to logoff a session, tsdiscon.exe, logoff.exe, shutdown.exe, and LockWorkstation function.
None of them work. If I do the same through SCCM, the computer autologs in.
|
|
|
|
|
Nevermind. Looks like I guessed a bunch of times and was able to figure it out. Even though in SCCM, I only use tsdiscon and the account used is the SYSTEM account, it works. It doesn't apply in this scenario. Using tsdiscon 1 (Session 1) works or WTSDisconnectSession function with a 1 for Session 1 also works.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not using Visual Studio these days. I use C and C++, or at least I am trying to learn to use C and C++.
I remember putting over 1,000,000 entries into a listbox and then being able to read all of them back.
I also remember the listbox sorting that entire 1,000,000 entries correctly.
Who else has noticed this capacity?
And, as a follow up question: Does the latest version of Visual Studio have this capacity for it's listbox?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Studio has nothing to do with this. The limits of the controls are imposed by the control libraries in Windows and .NET.
Why on earth would you put a million items in a ListBox, or any other control for that matter? It'll take forever to populate unless you use "virtual mode", and, as a user, would you want to navigate through all that? Of course not! So why would ever do this?
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave Kreskowiak, Why on earth would you not want to know the actual limits on controls? Microsoft has wrongly stated constraints in the past and it would take forever to find out if they were right or wrong if no one ever tested them. Wrong about the virtual mode. It did not take forever to populate. It was fast. Why assume that virtual mode would be the default avenue of effort? Of course I did not use virtual mode. That would have been a waste of time. Is that how you personally would do testing? Why would you even think of using virtual mode? Is that how you think? Are you so boxed into virtual mode that you assume it?
Why would you never test the limits of Visual Studio?
How would a mechanical engineer know the strain hardening within the stress/strain curve (Young's modulus) of various materials if no one ever tested such?
How would an aeronautical engineer know the travel of the shock-fit across the surface of a supersonic Joukowsky airfoil at various speeds if no one ever tested it?
How would an electrical engineer know that at ultra-high voltage the electrons leave the man-made electrical conducter and follow a plasmatic cloud self-created by those electrons if no one ever tested it?
Think before you answer! At least think before you answer me.
To test, of course. An Aeronautical, or Civil, or Electrical, or Electronic, or Mechanical, or Structural engineer would know that. I would guess that even a Systems Engineer would do testing, but I may be wrong.
I did not ask for your opinion on Visual Studio. I asked who noticed this capacity. You did not even answer the question. You went on a tangent.
Please allow people that, "noticed this capacity" to answer the question.
|
|
|
|
|
I never said testing the limits of the controls was irrelevant. Those are technical limits. Using the controls is subject to the usability limits of users. Sure, you can put a million items in a listbox. Now what?
Putting a million items in a control is putting your users through navigation hell. Are you seriously going to expect users to search through that many items to find the one, or more, they want? If you don't code for the limits of your users, they uninstall your app.
Technical limits are only one aspect of the "limits" you should be concerned about.
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave Kreskowiak, your wisdom about focusing on users I accept.
I explained in a different reply (to Gerry Schmitz) in this thread why I wanted the sort and what I had discovered.
The list and the sort would not necessarily be for the user to see, but for my internal use. And, by using a list box sort I did not have to include a sort of my own in code and could keep the final file size smaller. Microsoft has some very nice code already written that behind the scenes does some amazing things fast. I used their years of experience and army of coders to speed up my program and lessen the final size of it.
But, I was still left with the question of "How did they do that?" So, now I am attempting to devour C and C++ as fast and as thoroughly as I can. Read, study, code, try not to pull out hair, ask here, repeat.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 15078716 wrote: Who else has noticed this capacity?
I have never had a need to put that many in. The limits on most similar controls is usually available memory, so if you can get that many in it merely proves what good job Microsoft did in creating the control.
Member 15078716 wrote: Does the latest version of Visual Studio have this capacity for it's listbox?
This has nothing to do with Visual Studio. A ListBox is a Windows control.
|
|
|
|
|
@Richard MacCutchan, I bow to your wisdom.
Much of what I have done in programming after I retired has been based upon studing your postings.
Maybe it is a holdover from my working days, but I still occationally test what I am working with.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't put it "in a listbox"; you created a collection with a million entries; entries which could be anything. A "listbox" is a "visual"; it "simulates" what you think you see; it's not "real"; the collection is what's "real".
You have a collection that consumes memory based on the size of the entries; that's it. And at some point, once a collection is big enough, the system starts "paging"; and if there is not enough memory, it starts thrashing. That's where the performance, or lack thereof, comes in.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
@Gerry Schmitz, I had wondered if that was the case, when I did the test.
I had wondered, while using Visual Studio (almost exclusively) for programming, if I could code a sort routine that was as fast as the listbox sort was. I was wanting the ability to sort a large amount of data without using a pre-built database. I was also attempting to keep my executable file to a minimum size, while being able to use it on a Windows computer that did not have VS installed. I tested some and liked the listbox sort. I accidently input beyond what I was told the listbox could hold, and it still sorted correctly, and fast. So, somewhere the limit was not actually the limit. Thus, I tested, with increasing amounts until I found that a listbox could be used by me as a sorting process with over one million entries. Search for a sort that is as fast as a listbox for my vast entries was over.
I call it a listbox, but I know that there is no box and it is all some binary switching via Insulated Gate Bypolar Transistors.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom. I hope to have learned from it.
Or, could that be trinary switching since the insulated gate is simply an updated switch from the days of previous transistor designs. Or, could it be quadnary switching since ... So much to ask. Maybe a different question for that. Maybe a phD in semi-conductor circuit design electronic component engineering would know that.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
The listbox doesn't "sort" either; that's the job of the collection. You think it's sorting because that's where the interface is. The person in the drive-thru window doesn't actually make the burger; someone else does and passes it back.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
@Gerry Schmitz, very nice analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Fantastic analogy actually. I'm stealing it! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
