Separate VS.NET 2005 from all other versions
-
Hopefully, the only VS2005 articles focus on VS2005 features, which means they are only of use to people using VS2005 already ? fwsouthern wrote: not particularly well suited for release code Well, in fact you need to get a special licence from Microsoft before you're ALLOWED to release 2005 code into the wild, but overall, I haven't seen anything in 2005 that would make me think there were problems there. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Hopefully, the only VS2005 articles focus on VS2005 features, which means they are only of use to people using VS2005 already ? fwsouthern wrote: not particularly well suited for release code Well, in fact you need to get a special licence from Microsoft before you're ALLOWED to release 2005 code into the wild, but overall, I haven't seen anything in 2005 that would make me think there were problems there. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
You have much more confidence in MS and their new releases than I do, particularly where much of the inner workings either is not documented, incorrectly documented or not available except for internal use by MS.
-
You have much more confidence in MS and their new releases than I do, particularly where much of the inner workings either is not documented, incorrectly documented or not available except for internal use by MS.
fwsouthern wrote: You have much more confidence in MS and their new releases than I do Perhaps - I can't judge that without knowing you better. However, it's more true that I have confidence in my own ability to write unit tests. fwsouthern wrote: inner workings either is not documented, incorrectly documented or not available except for internal use by MS. Who cares about the inner workings, so long as the framework behaves as documented ? Isn't that what OO is all about ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
fwsouthern wrote: You have much more confidence in MS and their new releases than I do Perhaps - I can't judge that without knowing you better. However, it's more true that I have confidence in my own ability to write unit tests. fwsouthern wrote: inner workings either is not documented, incorrectly documented or not available except for internal use by MS. Who cares about the inner workings, so long as the framework behaves as documented ? Isn't that what OO is all about ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Fair comment, "so long as the framework behaves as documented" -- perhaps you could answer a question that MS cannot -- where is the documentation for IWMPVideoSettingsCtrl/WMPVideoSettingsCtrl and IWMPVideoSettingsCtrlClass/WMPVideoSettingsCtrlClass, why are these elements of WMPLib shown as having different attributes between C++, C#, J# and VB, and why is ProcAmp access to WMP10 in NET, although advertised as being available by MS, not available (except as shown in the object browser) except for "internal use by MS"?
-
Fair comment, "so long as the framework behaves as documented" -- perhaps you could answer a question that MS cannot -- where is the documentation for IWMPVideoSettingsCtrl/WMPVideoSettingsCtrl and IWMPVideoSettingsCtrlClass/WMPVideoSettingsCtrlClass, why are these elements of WMPLib shown as having different attributes between C++, C#, J# and VB, and why is ProcAmp access to WMP10 in NET, although advertised as being available by MS, not available (except as shown in the object browser) except for "internal use by MS"?
I have no idea - but I suggest you read my article on Direct Show in C# before you assume that I think everything Microsoft touches turns to gold. I recently used the Windows Media Player control in C# for an app, because Direct Show for C# is so terrible in it's implimentation. However, it seems that is by design, it's not meant to be a complete implimentation, I suspect it's meant to be enough to load one video and put it on a texture. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
I have no idea - but I suggest you read my article on Direct Show in C# before you assume that I think everything Microsoft touches turns to gold. I recently used the Windows Media Player control in C# for an app, because Direct Show for C# is so terrible in it's implimentation. However, it seems that is by design, it's not meant to be a complete implimentation, I suspect it's meant to be enough to load one video and put it on a texture. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
These have nothing to do with DirectShow -- they are used for access to WMP10 ProcAmp functions by interfacing through a custom "skin" -- however, MS declines to provide any sample. If you check http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wmplay10/mmp\_sdk/usingskinswiththewindowsmediaplayercontrol.asp, you will find that a partial reference is made to this access but no sample, either here or in the SDK's. Because of the lack of DirectShow support in C#, I write all my DirectShow FilterGraphs in C++ (ugh -- wrapper) and the remainder of the programming in C#. While DirectShow does provide access to the ProcAmp, WMP10 access is not available.
-
These have nothing to do with DirectShow -- they are used for access to WMP10 ProcAmp functions by interfacing through a custom "skin" -- however, MS declines to provide any sample. If you check http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wmplay10/mmp\_sdk/usingskinswiththewindowsmediaplayercontrol.asp, you will find that a partial reference is made to this access but no sample, either here or in the SDK's. Because of the lack of DirectShow support in C#, I write all my DirectShow FilterGraphs in C++ (ugh -- wrapper) and the remainder of the programming in C#. While DirectShow does provide access to the ProcAmp, WMP10 access is not available.
fwsouthern wrote: These have nothing to do with DirectShow Nor does WMP in general. My point was that I used WMP for an app because DirectShow is useless - i.e. I am happy to be critical if I think MS deserves it. fwsouthern wrote: Because of the lack of DirectShow support in C#, Not true. It sucks, but it's there. fwsouthern wrote: I write all my DirectShow FilterGraphs in C++ Yeah, they are not there. Although DirectShow is a COM object, you could use them through COM, surely ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
fwsouthern wrote: These have nothing to do with DirectShow Nor does WMP in general. My point was that I used WMP for an app because DirectShow is useless - i.e. I am happy to be critical if I think MS deserves it. fwsouthern wrote: Because of the lack of DirectShow support in C#, Not true. It sucks, but it's there. fwsouthern wrote: I write all my DirectShow FilterGraphs in C++ Yeah, they are not there. Although DirectShow is a COM object, you could use them through COM, surely ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
DirectShow "useless" -- totally agree. Want to see a 3G P4 with 2G memory choke? Try using live & encoded video, sequentially accessed, transitions between videos, multiple VMR's (one for each of 3 screens) each with different mixed content (text and images), on live video, insert second video for hearing-impaired "signer", allow input cropping rectangle and output size and position adjustments, and for one customer, split a video stream between two display devices, oh yes, and cut the video latency for live video to minimum -- gives new meaning to "100% CPU utilization" and "frame drop". DirectShow support in C# -- only if you want to Marshall the hell out of the interfaces, again without support of any kind from MS. Use DirectShow in C# through COM -- Hi ho, hi ho, its Marshalling we go ..... While this is a little off-base from my original post, it has been quite lively. My original objective had something to do with draining the swamp ..... I just wanted a quicker way to scan articles on CodeProject and ignore VS.NET 2005 articles, most of which do not indicate the target in the article name, only in the text, or, in some cases, only when you try and run the sample code in VS.NET 2003 (no, I don't mind the converstion from 2002, etc, at least most of the time).