Comments by Alex Culea

Alex Culea 28-Mar-14 15:41pm View

In theory, showing a popup window without getting activated is simple, here I fell in a pitfall in the positioning code when SetWindowPos'ing the menu window and not specifying each time SWP_NOACTIVATE. It seems that if you do not add the flag each time you are calling this function, the API will gracefully remove your WX_EX_SHOWNOACTIVATE without remorse. Lesson learned.

To capture mouse I have tried handling WM_WINDOWSPOSCHANGED checking for SWP_SHOWWINDOW and calling SetCapture(hMenuWnd). Then checking SWP_HIDEWINDOW to release the capture but this will deprive the children windows from getting WM_MOUSEMOVE (i'm having some nice mouse over effects there) and forwarding the message as with mouse presses does not return the correct results.

For now I will look into implementing a local hook as you correctly advised and see how that works. Will post a complete solution when I get all the pieces together.

Alex Culea 28-Mar-14 13:52pm View

Thanks, almost worked. However this has created another set of issues. Since the window is no longer active, it no longer receives WM_KILLFOCUS either so it will not get hidden when the user clicks something else. I am currently working to get it to behave itself and once I come up with a complete solution, I'll mark your answer as accepted and provide more details, maybe even writing a tip on CP.

Alex Culea 28-Mar-14 0:37am View

Thanks for your comment.

Yes. But the contents of my window gets drawn over by the other child controls and calling SetWindowPos(hMenuWnd, HWND_TOP, 0, 0, 0, 0, SWP_NOMOVE | SWP_NOSIZE | SWP_SHOWWINDOW );

But it did not change the Z-order in any way, still came behind the other controls.

Alex Culea 24-Aug-12 17:15pm View

There is absolutely no concern with the send(). The reason why recv was blocking in the last call was because I wasn't specifing "Connection: close" in the HTTP header, and the server was keeping the connection alive thus causing recv to block. Now the requests take less than a sec on google.com (URL parsing, hostname resolving included).

Alex Culea 24-Aug-12 16:55pm View

Nope I seen the results in the UI. My worker thread sends a notification to the main window which itself updates an multiline edit control with the response. Actually google.com is faster than locahost apache, LOL.

Alex Culea 24-Aug-12 16:51pm View

The "Connection: Close" entry did the job. The server was keeping the connection alive. The code posted above is a bad example of coding but this was not the purpose of the question. Thank you very much!

Alex Culea 24-Aug-12 16:37pm View

You are right about multi-threading debug. But somehow my case does not apply. This class is consumed by a worker thread. The thread itself is controlled by the UI using WINAPI message queues (PostMessage). The time it takes to receive the response is exactly the same when running in debug/release. Also, I set 2 breakpoints: one at the beginning of the method (the one shown above), and one at the end; and the time it takes the code to reach from A-B it's the same it takes when running without debugger. I'm stuck with this problem for a few days now, can't seem to find any clue. :(

Alex Culea 24-Aug-12 16:04pm View

While it is my intention for recv to block (is running in a separate thread), the actual problem is that it blocks for too long. I updated the code to use the select function and still nothing. Also, when I test the code on a remote server (google.com) the recv function blocks until I stop debugging. Could it have anything to do with the socket creation code? Btw, thanks for your input.

Alex Culea 24-Aug-12 14:07pm View

No, the webserver is not the culprit in this case. It takes my browser less than 1 sec to load the same message (a short .htm file). Also it's noticeable when debugging as I step through code that recv blocks.

Alex Culea 9-Jun-11 13:05pm View

Your solution is the right answer to my problem, thanks a lot!

Comments by Alex Culea (Top 10 by date)