In this case, it made sense to have a different name, but doing that would have made the refactoring much easier. I wish I would have thought of that at the time. ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

The more formats the better obviously - but I would probably hit 95% of the target audience by just supporting Canon and Nikon formats. I know where you're going with this, and trust me I've been there already. I have a couple books on the subject of image processing and have implemented some of the basics already. I've taken a look at the Canon SDK as well. The conclusion from this work is that the code really is generic and that I'd be doing the same work that someone else has already done - so why not just buy a library that does that and continue on with the rest of the application. This will make dev time for the app shrink significantly. ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

It took me a while to figure out how I could apply this, but I think I have it now. It's basically what I was thinking already, but one step forward so that the user doesn't need to worry about the graphics at all, it will be done fully inside the object. Thanks a bunch. ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

I just happened to have it lying around from a recent project. only two letters away from being an asset

That would explain it. WTF though, with SCM data saved in each specific project, it shouldn't be an issue for the IDE to handle any number of SCM's, even in the same solution if the user so pleased - though I can see reasons for wanting to at least put that restriction in, but only one in the IDE is plain stupid. (OK, ranting over - I guess we can't have everything, right?) I guess that also means that there's not going to be a way to switch back and forth between the two (well, easily anyway). Hmm ... does VS2005 support more than one SCM? I'll have to dig around and see, then port everything over if so. If all else fails, I suppose I can update the projects to VS005 that need to connect to one SCM, and use VS2003 for the other. What a PITA! Thanks for the reply, I had pretty much given up on getting an answer for this. ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sorry I was a bit quick in reading your post :-O I've had a brief look into this (which I neglected to do earlier and it seems that there is no easy or at least obvious way around this). I'll take a look later because you have me intrigued now. :) Ed

That did it alright. I swore I tried that yesterday - but I tried a million combinations before giving up and posting, that one must have slipped through, or maybe it didn't work with some other setting I had at the time. Whatever, works now - Thanks! ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

:) You need to find all the serializable types within an assembly. Solution Instead of testing the implemented interfaces and attributes on every type, you can query the Type.IsSerialized property to determine whether it is marked as serializable, as the following method does: public static Type[] GetSerializableTypes(Assembly asm) { List<Type> serializableTypes = new List<Type>(); // Look at all types in the assembly. foreach(Type type in asm.GetTypes()) { if (type.IsSerializable) { // Add the name of the serializable type. serializableTypes.Add(type); } } return (serializableTypes.ToArray()); } The GetSerializableTypes method accepts an Assembly through its asm parameter. This assembly is searched for any serializable types, and their full names (including namespaces) are returned in a Type[]. In order to use this method to display the serializable types in an assembly, run the following code: public static void FindSerializable() { Assembly asm = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(); Type[] serializable = GetSerializableTypes(asm); // Write out the serializable types in the assembly. if(serializable.Length > 0) { Console.WriteLine("{0} has serializable types:",asm.Location); foreach (Type t in serializable) { Console.WriteLine("\t{0}", t.FullName); } } }

Yes, val3 - val4 is greater than accuracy, but that leaves me with the problem that val3 == val1 is true, val1 == val4 is true, but val3 == val4 is false. A==B, B==C therefore A==C is a basic mathematical principal that this is breaking, and I'm afraid will cause problems, and I can't figure out a way around it. Truncation isn't quite right either, that way 1.0000000001 and 1.00000000009 wouldn't match up. I've since rewritten the equality method, to get much better results but no matter how I change it, I still can't get around that basic problem. BTW, I've thought about using the Decimal structure for internal calculations, but I don't know how much it would gain me when most of the intermediate results will be stored outside of my class and will be in double. ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Vineas wrote: Gah! I feel like an idiot, I searched quite a bit on here but didn't even think to search the MS KB. I didn't search the MS KB either, but I did a google with "KB" as an extra search parameter :-) And you are welcome. Regards, Nish My blog : Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET

Turns out I didn't need to use the registry value anyway, the article at the link I put in earlier had a message that is sent to the top level window just before auto play is enacted. I ended up hooking this in a background thread whenever the CD burning dialogs are up, worked really well and didn't have to worry about messing up registry or a blocking AfxMessageBox call (one of the big problems I had once I figured out the message I needed to handle). Thanks again for all the help, the code project has been a constant source of help and inspiration. ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

You should also see if you can receive the WM_MINMAXINFO message, which is where you are supposed to constrain the minimum and maximum size your window can get.

That looks like exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a bunch! ----- In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

I'm glad I was able to be of help. There is an article here at CP by Newcomer about Worker Threads which you should read. Make sure you don't use SendMessage from thread, instead always use PostMessage(). All to do with deadlocks. Neville Franks, Author of ED for Windows www.getsoft.com and coming soon: Surfulater www.surfulater.com