Hello all Good day . Though this question is not relevant to MFC or Win32 but to do with VB generic behavior => I have a outlook plugin ( COM plugin ) developed in VB 6.0 . We have an external application which uses the outlook addin to get the contact details from outlook. The problem is here => We create a new application object and free it as below => Set gApp = New Outlook.Application .... Set gApp = Nothing After this code is executed when we click on outlook application it says "Operation failed" . It looks like the outlook application object is not well freed by the statement Set gApp = Nothing . But I checked by adding the line below to ensure if the gApp is really free or not . If gApp is Nothing Then Log("gApp is free") Else Log ( "gApp is not free") Endif Even after this check it shows gApp is free which does not seem to be the case . What can I further do to make sure the object is really made NULL !!!! Going crazy with VB regards

redindian

Today I came across a thrilling news about sixth sense technology researched and demonstrated by one Pranav Mistry of MIT USA . He gave a lecture in Mysore India . Do not miss to watch out the second video in the link below. http://www.ted.com/speakers/pranav\_mistry.html Its absolutely thrilling because ->he is able to take photos simply by making hand gestures ->by hand gestures he makes the content of a paper to be displayed in the PC ->he is able to make phone calls from hand itself ->he makes a piece of paper work as a keyboard etc etc And above all – he has declared that this technology will be a open source !!!

redindian

Hi Hans Could you plesae elaborate your point ? I understand the memory will be allocated to the pointer of the class object at runtime . But why and how should it affect the adjacent std::strings ? Also the point I am wondering is that the memory of std::string comes from stack while that of mNotifyOptions is from heap . regards

redindian

Hello all Though its linux problem I thought I will give a try to my age old forum as the problem seems to be typical memory management ...ok here I go .. We have a class which has members listed as below in the declaration class SOAP_CMAC MyUserProfile { public: std::string name; std::string name2; std::string firstName; public: LONG64 pwdStatus; std::string setType; public: class NotifyOptions *mNotifyOptions; LONG64 USCOREtype; std::string USCOREmacAddress; std::string USCOREipAddress; public: MyUserProfile() { } virtual ~MyUserProfile() { } }; In the run time after object for MyUserProfile is created , reference to std::strings USCOREmacAddress and USCOREipAddress are crashing due to segmentation fault! The lines which crash due to segmentation fault are doing an assign operation USCOREmacAddress.assign(“char string”); But reference to std::strings name , name2 , firstName and settype do not crash . Upon observation I found that the line class NotifyOptions *mNotifyOptions is in between the two sections . So I moved the line class NotifyOptions *mNotifyOptions ; to the end of the class declaration . This made the reference to name , name2 , firstName , settype also to crash !!! . It seems this object mNotifyOptions which will be created at run time is somehow the reason for the crash happening on std::string objects ….But I am at wits end to know what it is and how to solve it … The point is : we migrated from gcc library 2.4. to 2.6 . And after this this problem surfaced without any modifications in the code present in both situations …. Any help guys on this problem ? with warm regards

redindian

Hello all I have a big problem after upgrading to IE8 . In our filetransfer module we are using wininet_connect(..) to establish connections via gSoap client . It has been working fine till we upgraded to IE8 with wininet.dll version 8.0 . The problem is that the wininet_callback is getting INTERNET_STATUS_CONNECTION_CLOSED message due to which gSoap client is disconnecting . This does not happen in IE6 and its wininet.dll version ... Has anyone faced this problem ?

redindian

Hi all In order to implement NTLM authentication we have implemented code which requires support of Wininet.dll which ships with IE . The problem is - the behavior of our HTTP connections faces problems due to different versions of wininet.dll . All of a sudden we find that our application is at the mercy of the build versions of wininet.dll . is there any other way , other than being dependent on wininet.dll , to support NTLM authentication ?

redindian

I am already aware of how to enumerate the processes and kill it . What I want to know is : To find if a process is running in background or running with UI ....

redindian

Hi all Our application has to kill OUTLOOK.exe if it runs only in background . Assuming we already have process id and handle to kill it with TerminateProcess , how to find if this outlook.exe has UI active or not ?? Any APIs please ...

redindian

Hi all We have a situation with our custom TSP and an application . The TSP is a Telephony service provider which provides service to MS dialer . The issue is when the PC is restarted svchost.exe (which is active due to starting of TSP )consumes 50% CPU and another application X which commonly shares registry entries with TSP take long time . After 5 to 10 minutes the CPU load comes down and the application starts . The issues seems to be , as mentioned above , with the concurrent access of common resources (registry etc) by the TSP + application X . The worst case scenario is : Application X , as its unable to access registry , forgets the old configuration and a configuration application is started - which calls for trouble as a technician visit to site is mandatory in most cases . The point is : Application X is always part of Start menu and the TSP is started by service host as a service. I am searching for ideas to unblock this situation . Whats the best way to make svchost.exe and Application X not to fight for recources at the same time ? 1. Is its advisible to mutex lock the code surrounding the registry access ? (will it solve or worsen the situation ..!?) 2. Is there anyway we can make application X to be started only after starting of all services and other applications ? ie is there any way to prioritize the starting order of processes? thanks

redindian

Trollslayer wrote:

This has been on the cards for years

Its been on the cards since early 80s when political Pakistan became obsessed with the single word Kashmir and thier big brother involvment (not to mention US) in Afgan internal affairs . The radicalization of Pakistan is hitting it back with venomous sting . It was logical ismalic militants were helped to kill Hindus in India but its logical now for Al Quida or other mujahedeens to kill thier same brethern in order to fight their kafirs - US ...

redindian

Mycroft Holmes wrote:

it looks like one of the dreariest places on the planet,

Hm.. Ok

Mycroft Holmes wrote:

has no reasources

No . Most part of Pakistan is very fertile (except the arid north west ). Whats wrong with that country is ITS FATE ! . Till 5 years before it was one of the most moderate muslim nations of the world .

redindian

Hi all I know its windows forum . But I have a doubt : What is the equivalent of _set_new_handler() in unix GCC ? When I tried including it its not compiling . I have included also .

redindian

Hi all We have an application developed in VC++ which configures a server . It runs in Windows XP . This application is used by a testing tool to automatic testing . Thats , the user interface will be fed with values and configuration will be happening . Is there any way to make this application run in the background without affecting the testing tool when it modifies the UI values ? I am sure we can make the process run in the background when there is not user interface activity . But keeping UI active for the test tool and making it invisible is something new for me . Any ideas please ...

redindian

I think its specifically for wait functions called inside a thread . But the code I am listing does not contain any wait functions . There is a second lock/unlock when there is an access to a global variable . Cedric I think Naveen's point that the first call to mutexunlock will unlock the mutex object and the rest of the call to Function1() will not be threadsafe . What do you say ? I am taking an important decision to affect many critical functions which have these occurances..

redindian

Thanks . But what I am curious about is - why should there be a lock/unlock inside Function1() when the whole function call is already locked ?.

redindian

Hi all I need to clarify a point with the usage of mutex locking . mutexlock(&mutexobj); Function1(socket &lnk); mutexunlock(&mutexobj); In Function1() { mutexlock(&mutexobj); globalvar1= globalvar2; mutexunlock(&mutexobj); } My questions : -> Is it right/necessary to mutex lock inside Function1()? I understand a global lock/unlock surrounding the call to Function1() will ensure that the whole code / critical resources are thread safe . I find such occurance of such locking/unlocking in many areas of the code I am working with . Is it not a problem ? .

redindian

Hi all I am trying to develope a demo project with which we can disable PPP modem connections . Can anyone please help ? regards

redindian

fat_boy wrote:

Except for the '60 million'

Whats the real number then ?

fat_boy wrote:

Except for the '60 million' I agree with what you say. It seems the British were caught in the middle, and made a mess of things.

It was the US which passed a "White Paper" supporting the birth of Isreal . This act caught the Brits surprised . The US support was due to the heavy lobbying by the powerful Zionists in US who wanted birth of Isreal at any cost . And ofcourse the guilty Europe started thinking in the lines of the zionists because they were silent spectators (barring few exceptions like Holland) to the atrocities commited to jews. So I buy your argument that UK was caught it the middle . But they could have done a more better job than running away from the crisis . They could have clearly demarcated the lands between jews and arabs and made sure arabs accept the existence of Isreal . After all it was English who allowed the first landing of 1000 odd jews from shores of Europe into red sea shores....and they were the colonial rulers who should have shown more responsibility . Remember : The massacre of millions of Hindus in Pakistan when India got freedom . Lord Mountbatten did not plan properly about the security of so many millions of Hindus there ....while Gandhi was there to save the lives of 18% of muslims in India .

redindian

fat_boy wrote:

Interesting program, it certainly showed the militancy of the Israelis, and how vicous they were, slaughtering a Mosque full of civilians, including women and children. I can imaging how the Palestinians feel with this in their recent memory.

Well , in fact its true Isrealies (or the early Zionists to be precise) were ruthless when they occupied thier promised land . The islamic terrorism which has taken a brand new dimension as the major threat to global peace has its roots in the palestenian problem .

fat_boy wrote:

Also the Palestinians were aparently supporters of Hitler, even today Mein Kampf is still a popular book there.

Enemy of your enemy is a friend . But none can support the holocaust suffered by 60 million jews in the hands of nazis...

fat_boy wrote:

Something else the program said was interesting: the Trans Jordanian invasion force was led by British Officers!

Not only that there was an army called "The arab legion" commandered by an English general. In fact all the arab nations swore to wipe (the newly born) Isreal from the face of earth . Had the Arab legion been successful in thwarting the still struggling Isreal state all Isrealies would have ended up drowned in red sea . Thanks to internal fights of Whos_the_first_arab_to_contribute_money among Iraq , Egpht , Lebonan , Syria and Jordan - the much expected assault from Arabs never occured fully .

fat_boy wrote:

So here's the wquestion; Did what the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis give them the right to act like this against Palestnians?

Of course what they suffered at the hands of Hitler and Stalin substantiated thier claim to thier promised land . What went wrong was due to the divide and escape policies of the English . They left Jerusalem so abrutply that jews and palestenians fought for building by building and street by street . Finally it was the jews who won . The reason is simple - a community which has been suffering for 2000 years (or less , I am not quoting bible here) all over Europe (except for India where the oldest Synagogue outside Isreal is in India and Indians never treated them badly) would ofcourse had its adrenalin running fast and bright - the hunted animal runs faster than the hunting one!! Well , they could have peacefully shared this part o

Hi all We are facing an issue with Web service calls to a linux server from Windows 2000 server . A web service call succeeds if the web service client API is run from a Win XP PC . The same API call is failing from a Windows 2000 server . What could possibly block a web service call in W2k server ? Is it firewall or something else ? This problem is reported in a customer's PC . We tried to reproduce this issue locally by enabling firewall and stopping IIS etc . But we are unable to reproduce the problem . Any ideas please on what could block a web service call ?

redindian