Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creating New Threads For ActiveX Controls At Runtime

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lance Edmonds
    replied
    It would be inappropriate for Tech Support to offer any comment...

    ------------------
    Lance
    PowerBASIC Support
    mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

    Leave a comment:


  • Philippe Monteil
    replied
    <<PS: If you think that PowerBASIC has not taken a good look at .NET, well...
    And what does PB think of .NET?

    Philippe



    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Kev Peel
    replied
    All those acronyms dizzy me

    ------------------
    Kev G Peel
    KGP Software, Bridgwater, UK.
    mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance Edmonds
    replied
    Chris, before jumping up and down, you may wish to review the thread discussion again, especially Tom's response in relation to the previous replies...

    Thanks!

    PS: If you think that PowerBASIC has not taken a good look at .NET, well...

    Anyway, this is getting off topic for this forum...

    ------------------
    Lance
    PowerBASIC Support
    mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Roebuck
    Guest replied
    Tom:
    It seems odd to me that you would recommend Delphi to a VB
    programmer. First of all, you are turning a programmer away from
    Basic (and Powerbasic) to Pascal. Secondly, your own company is
    working on a Linux compiler which Borland already has in its Kylix product.
    At least if a programmer stays with VB, they could augment the
    shortcomings with Powerbasic.

    Also, it is very obvious to me that you have not looked at VB.Net or you
    would not have made the statement, "VB.Net is not a Basic, so much
    as C++ with some statements renamed with a Basic style." Yes, VB.Net
    is different from VB6 in the same way that MFC programming is different
    from calling API's directly using C++. The C++ language constructs are
    the same, however the syntax and style is very different. VB.Net
    is just VB6 with a new MFC library (or in this case the CLR - Common
    Language Runtime). Now, don't let the word Runtime mislead you, VB.Net
    is a fully compiled language (compiled to native code). However,
    in the case of any .Net language, the compiler is actually the CLR.
    The CLR compiles either at execution time (known as JIT) or at setup
    time, which is selectable by the programmer. Now, given that the
    CLR provides native compilation, any platform that has a CLR can be
    targeted by a .Net application. I think that you will see Microsoft
    release a CLR for a wide range of platforms. This will provide them
    with a way of getting extra revenue from their existing products
    (like Office) without having to rewrite a platform specific version
    of the product (like Office for the Mac). Microsoft can write an
    application once which is .Net enabled, and then sell that program
    to anyone that has the CLR running on their OS. I would not be
    surprised to see Windows itself ported to the CLR so that it could
    set on top of any OS and provide a common User Interface. In this
    way, Microsoft has made the DOJ's case disappear because the computing
    public can choose any OS and still run their Office applications.
    Of course, I'm sure Microsoft will charge for the CLR on a different
    platform (Windows will come with its CLR). In this way, it doesn't
    matter which OS you have on your computer.

    Chris Roebuck
    MCSD, MCT
    Senior Software Architect

    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    Under MSDN's View menu, Define Subset will help
    Sometimes it helps, but since you can only select one group at a time, I find it easier to just use Index/Contents/Platform Sdk/etc for "standard" lookups. And it seems I can never get to some of the pages through search, especially the "overviews" of the controls.

    Oh, well, as long as I can actually locate the API reference and the "see also" links, I guess I should be happy....


    MCM

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hanlin
    replied
    Under MSDN's View menu, Define Subset will help.

    ------------------
    Tom Hanlin
    PowerBASIC Staff

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Mattias
    replied
    My view: .NET is about ten years too early. It - or something like it - could be pretty well deployed in the 2011-2016 time frame.

    Of course, I am not betting the farm against Microsoft: anyone with that much cash to spend cannot be ignored.

    Just as an adjunct: it's so much fun with my new MDSN disk to have to have all the .NET (vulgar euphemism) clutter up my API reference lookups. I guess the Boys From Redmond want me to get in the habit early.

    MCM

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hanlin
    replied
    Hmm? When Microsoft Bob went down the tubes, I don't think the company even noticed. I imagine the failure of .NET, should it happen, will cause a bit more ripple; but there's no reason to think that it won't fail just because Microsoft made it. .NET and VB.NET seem completely off-target to me but, that's just my opinion.

    Of course, Microsoft's failures are often PowerBASIC's gains. No reason to complain about that! And sure, if .NET actually gets off the ground, there is likely to be one or more PowerBASIC compilers for it.

    Likewise, it seems that PowerBASIC's lack of COM support has been a business opportunity for you as well, with JA/Com. I'd think you'd find no reason to complain about that!

    There's a wonderful lot of room in the world for new computing solutions. Fortunately for all of us, no one company owns the whole market, nor is it ever likely to do so.

    ------------------
    Tom Hanlin
    PowerBASIC Staff

    Leave a comment:


  • Philippe Monteil
    replied

    <<and you won't be locked
    <<into the uncertain future of the unreleased .NET framework.
    .NET's future is as 'uncertain' as MS's as a company is, that
    is it is hardly questionable IMO. .NET migth very well become
    the best available development plateform in a near future. Many
    independent articles will explain it better than I will.

    PB has wasted major business oportunities because it has refused
    to take a close and non-biaised look at COM years ago. It was the
    only company in the world capable of releasing a product able to
    get the VB community rid of some of the most severe limitations
    imposed by VB's COM support. VB was not able to produce multi-
    threaded COM components for example, and this was a real problem
    for creating highly-scalable, critical business applications.

    I hope that PB will not use the 'bloatware' excuse once more
    to repeat the same mistake with .NET. The .NET runtime will be
    quickly be integrated in the Windows OSs, the question of its size
    will therefore quickly become irrelevant.

    If VB.NET is not a 'real' Basic anymore, why not release a PB.NET
    compiler and make it become the only 'real' one available?

    Philippe Monteil
    JAZZAge Software




    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Rich Brockway
    replied
    If you go the Delphi route, I'd check out the VB to Delphi converter
    at www.deluxsoftware.com.

    Rich


    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hanlin
    replied
    As near I can tell, VB.NET is not a BASIC, so much as C++ with some statements renamed with a BASIC style. If you really need to move away from PowerBASIC and Visual Basic altogether, I'd suggest Delphi instead. The syntax and visual design are likely to be more familiar, and you won't be locked into the uncertain future of the unreleased .NET framework.

    You can certainly get there with PowerBASIC, though.

    ------------------
    Tom Hanlin
    PowerBASIC Staff

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Roebuck
    Guest replied
    Paul,
    You might want to check out http://www.vbaccelerator.com. They are doing some
    very advanced programming in VB6 including Free-Threaded ActiveX controls. They give
    you the full source code to all controls. Also, check out the book Advanced Visual Basic
    6.0 (http://www.bookpool.com/.x/m6g23ijnp6/ss/1?qs=curland) by Matt Curland. The author was
    on the VB5 development team and shows you exactly how to do all of the things that seem impossible
    using VB6. Like you, I use Powerbasic to do things like Windows Services, etc. that I can't
    do in VB. I have looked at http://www.jazzagesoft.com and I would recommend that you use his stuff
    prior to going to a different language. However, if you set on changing to another language,
    I would suggest you look at VB.Net first. It gives the VB developer all the power of C++ with
    the ease of VB (like the fact that I can use free-threading in a little as three lines of code).
    I'm currently using the Beta 2 to do some very exciting things that I could
    not do with VB6 (or was very difficult).

    HTH,
    Chris Roebuck
    MCSD,MCT

    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Philippe Monteil
    replied
    Paul,

    <<
    Is there any way at all to do this, or have we wasted our time? We absolutely need the GUI features of VB, which makes 'simply' converting all of our ActiveX controls over the PB dlls impossible.
    >>
    I would suggest to take a look at our JA COM/PB 2.0: it will add
    full support for COM components and for ActiveX controls to PB/DLL.

    A 30 days, full featured Evaluation Version is available
    from our web site.

    Philippe Monteil
    JAZZAge Software
    www.jazzagesoft.com



    ------------------

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Noble
    replied
    Hi Paul,

    Are you aware of Philippe Monteil's tools which allow PowerBASIC to use COM ? His web site,
    JazzAge Software, is at http://www.jazzagesoft.com .

    Another approach that occurs to me is to use ActiveX exe's ('worker' exe's) to effectively
    simulate multiple threads. I wrote a database server some years ago in VB5 that does just this -
    the worker exe's are out-of-process, but programatically, they are just objects. This may or
    may not be useful in your context.

    Regards,

    Paul


    ------------------
    http://www.zippety.net
    mailto[email protected][email protected]</A>

    Leave a comment:


  • Gregery D Engle
    replied
    Paul,

    Be very careful, threads in VB can be very tricky. For example
    if you call your DLL with and the DLL file creates a Thread and
    then it calls back into VB, VB will crash.

    If you need to make a call back to VB you have to make that call
    on the same thread.

    Lance knows more on this subject.

    As far as ACTIVEX, you can use third part tools to use ActiveX
    controls with PB


    ------------------
    -Greg

    Leave a comment:


  • Creating New Threads For ActiveX Controls At Runtime

    The primary reason we purchased PB/DLL 6.0 some months ago was to overcome the horrible limitation Visual Basic 6.0 imposes on threads. We have been working for months on a solution using various workarounds within VB itself, however we've had no success due to the complex nature of our program.

    Our program is very advanced in that we're actually loading ActiveX controls dynamically at runtime. What we need is a PB dll that allows our main program to pass it ActiveX components so they're loaded into a new thread. We understand that thus far this isn't possible because apparently there's no support for this in PB.

    Is there any way at all to do this, or have we wasted our time? We absolutely need the GUI features of VB, which makes 'simply' converting all of our ActiveX controls over to PB dlls impossible.

    We've reached the point where we're going to have to dump PB and VB altogether, so any help is greatly appreciated.

    Thanks in advance,


    Paul Valliere.

    [This message has been edited by Paul Valliere (edited September 02, 2001).]
Working...
X