Thanks for the reply, Richard! I also had taken a look at the code in System.Xml.dll from 4.5.2 and from 4.6.1 using ILSpy, but couldn't find any significant difference. Both versions had the "XmlCharType.bin" resource embedded inside the assembly. When our addon is being loaded, it's creating a separate AppDomain to avoid any side effects the host application might have, so I have no idea what they could actually do to make our addon fail so miserably. I even looked at the assemblies loaded into our AppDomain when initializing the configuration system fails and System.Xml.dll is already loaded at the very beginning, so I really cannot see what could keep the assembly from finding its own embedded resource... To my understanding, even fiddling with CAS cannot influence access to an assembly when it's already loaded, can it? Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

mav.northwind wrote: the whole class has exactly 0 comments That's exactly how much comments code should have! :D Great code requires no comments. Most comments are bad anyway. I'm so allergic to comments I even wrote a tip on why you shouldn't comment (and the rare case you should): Write comments that matter[^] Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile. Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra Regards, Sander

The difference between eternity and 24 days matters actually. Windows 9x did crash after 49.7 days. They used unsigned int back then... “Today is the first day of the rest of your life.”

:thumbsup: 5 /ravi My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

I'm not sure that they generate meshes. They could also be using surface splatting to "directly" render the point cloud (of course with LOD - e.g. something like Sequential Point Trees[^]) And as the detail level increases, ray-tracing becomes more competetive, so that might also be an option. By the time games using this technologies are actually published, everyone will have a programmable graphics card (CUDA, OpenCL, ..), so there's no need for them to stick with good old triangles. modified on Thursday, August 4, 2011 8:17 AM

Ok, I've found a solution myself: According to this thread[^] the behaviour is "by design" and unsually no attributes of such a class are serialized. I've solved the problem by not deriving from List<T> but by including the list as a member. Thanks anyway, Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

Damn, you're right, I didn't think about that. At the moment with no-one suffering from WMI troubles it doesn't matter, but let me tell you: There Will Be Ones! X| Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

;P Ok, saying that my applications are behaving strangely would be more appropriate :D Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

Looks as if I was just missing a small step - I think I can answer my own question :) For those interested: An XPath finding only the nodes I wanted is //assemblyIdentity[@name="ClassLibrary1"]/../bindingRedirect[@oldVersion="1.0.0.0"]/.. Nevertheless - if someone else knows a better way I'm always willing to learn. Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

an old textbook way to improve your efficiency when your boss is using TLOC :) using float will make him much more efficient. :-D

mav.northwind wrote: but what exactly do you mean by "windows inbuilt text effects"? that mean windows is handling that drag drop itself as text content... TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L %^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2 W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKSQXUFYK[M`UKs*$GwU#(QDXBER@CBN% Rs0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-i’TV.C\y<pŠjxsg-b$f4ia> -------------------------------------------------------- 128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can

Very cool! Thanks for the update! Cheers, Mark Mark Salsbery Microsoft MVP - Visual C++ :java:

Great, thanks for the reply! I'll take a look at the link. Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

I have marked your reply as helpful answer. Might help someone in future. These problems are quite tricky. It's nice to hear that you are able to identify the cause. Cheers, Sohail

mav.northwind wrote: I was hoping for a link about document information in RTF documents... That wouldn't be much use, they change them daily in an attempt to make Google look bad!

No, I haven't tried anything that involves changing the DLL yet. It's rather complicated - I cannot just modify the DLL and redeploy. But perhaps we found something: The administrator at the customer's site found some malware during an AV scan and will now reset the machine to their standard image. So chances are some badly written malware was not passing along all the parameters in this case. I've just got to keep my fingers crossed that it'll work again afterwards. Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...

mav.northwind wrote: How would you "hand off" a request to a different server when the initial request is a method call to a server object? Hmmm. Here's how I think it would work: when the client calls a method on the server object it's only aware of the data (if any) required by the method and the result (if any) returned by the method, but it doesn't know how the method is implemented. In this case, then as long as the contract between the client and the server is honoured, then you can change the implementation as much as you want. For example given a server method like List<user> GetAllUsers() you could have this method contact a database directly and return a result, or it could asynchronously call a method on another server (the hand off) and when it gets the result back return that to the client. mav.northwind wrote: And, the initial server would stay the bottleneck unless there's a way to hand off the request in a way so that the result doesn't have to pass through the initial server, wouldn't it? In a way yes I guess it is, but in another way no I guess it isn't. I've been doing a fair bit of research/implementation on web services lately (not that this makes me an expert), and by far the biggest win for me is having this well defined single point of contact for clients to connect to*, which means I can make changes at the server and never need touch the clients. If at some point in the future I introduce a webmethod that taxes the current hardware, I can do what I described above and have the actual meat of that method execute on another machine. The clients won't be aware that this is what's happening, so I can make this switch pretty much seamlessly. There is another consideration in that I needed to guarantee that the web service box could handle all the requests and traffic. I set up a little test with a webmethod that simply returned about 10Kb of text to the client. Overall I found that the server could easily deal with huge numbers of this type of request per minute - it didn't even break a sweat! But should the need ever arise I can add more bandwidth, more ram, a faster cpu, more cpu's etc etc. Along with the failover backup and the ability to hand intensive tasks off to another server without the client being aware of this I *think* what I've got is a fairly scalable, robust and predominantly "up" architecture (although time will tell). From an

:-D Victory is mine! (as Stewie Griffin would say) Finally, I got some code from a guy in an MCE forum who was sending keystrokes to an mstsc window in response to IR remote control events. He also used keybd_event (which didn't work in my tests), but also used AttachThreadInput, so I think this was the missing piece. With this code I was able to send Ctrl+V to mstsc, thus triggering paste into the current application. Works like a charm! Anyway, thanks for your support! Regards, mav -- Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...