I don't think what I said is wrong, but it would have been clearer if I
had said: "there is no way (in verifiable code) to pass a reference
between two different threads".
You can consider a reference to be local to a thread. The fact that
there might be two references (in different threads) to th
From: "Josh Blair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does anyone know of a way to get a list of System ODBC Data sources in
ADO.NET?
> I see there is a SQLDataSources API call but was hoping to avoid Interop.
I guess
> that would work just fine though so if anyone has any samples, that would
great too.
If yo
Hello,
Does anyone know of a way to get a list of System ODBC Data sources in ADO.NET? I see
there is a SQLDataSources API call but was hoping to avoid Interop. I guess that
would work just fine though so if anyone has any samples, that would great too.
Regards,
Josh Blair
SoftBrands, Inc.
S
Hi J... Do you happen to have any more info on this? Thanks in advance!
Thx,
David
-Original Message-
From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. Merrill
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOT
Thanks Chris... I'll check it out and let you know what I discover.
Thx,
David
-Original Message-
From: Unmoderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Mullins
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOT
In the interest of putting this to sleep, I think the only people who can
answer why they made the design decision to go by-val instead of by-ref is
the DirectX managed wrapper team. Perhaps you can find a direct channel to
them. Do any of them have a weblog? I think what we're most likely going to
Almost, but not quite. Instances of a value type can be hosted within a
reference type, which is always allocated in the managed heap. Two threads
can then access the same instance of a value type at the same time.
However, nothing horrible can happen.
-- arlie
-Original Message-
From:
John Elliot writes:
> I guess I meant 'strange' as in 'closed source, poorly
> documented, "I didn't write it", etc.' (don't know much
> about DirectX doco, so that's not a sledge as such).
The DirectX docs are actually fairly decent.
> Say for example I'm targeting the managed DirectX API, and
Hi Arlie,
> That's all nice and applicable to 3D programming, but it's
> not really relevant. No matter how fancy your shaders are,
> and how powerful your GPU is -- you will still need to
> manipulate matrices in your app.
I then assume you're not doing 3D programming? :) I mean: you
It's an "empty structure" because it is a stub emitted by the managed C++
compiler. In other words, the Managed DirectX libraries are written in
managed C++. This compiler has to emit *something* in the MSIL metadata
that describes the types that the MDX libraries manipulate. _D3DMATRIX is
clear
That's all nice and applicable to 3D programming, but it's not really
relevant. No matter how fancy your shaders are, and how powerful your GPU
is -- you will still need to manipulate matrices in your app.
Doing 3D in a managed language should not impose any undue / silly
penalties, especially wh
Microsoft.DirectX.Matrix is a 4x4 value type / struct, containing 16
elements, M11 through M44.
System.Drawing.Drawing2D.Matrix is a very different class. It is a 3x3
matrix, and it is a reference class. This is because it is just a wrapper
around a GDI+ pointer. I don't know what is behind tha
That isn't my decision to make. Managed DirectX uses value types for Matrix
and several other types. Overall, I agree with the decision.
I'm certainly not going to waste my time rolling another managed interop
layer for DirectX.
-- arlie
-Original Message-
From: Unmoderated discussion
Thanks, Matthew. ;-)
Andy: you can also download the samples from
http://www.apress.com/book/supplementDownload.html?bID=47&sID=374
In general however: this sink uses symmetric encryption which depends on
manual (upfront, deployment-time) key exchanges. If you need a higher
(aka "real") level of
Covered quite nicely in Ingo Rammer's (excellent) Advanced .Net Remoting
book. The book includes sample encrypted provider.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Remoting Encryptio
The assembly you mention has the actual controls. The assembly that contains the
"designer" elements for use in VS is called
Microsoft.Web.UI.WebControls.Design
Just in case you don't know -- the MSDN docn for these says [quote] Note: Microsoft®
Internet Explorer WebControls are not curre
There was a thread earlier that concluded that the solution is to host the IE Browser
control in your COM-based app, and use the WinForm user control inside that control.
Does that make sense?
At 11:07 AM 5/17/2004, David Garcia wrote (in part)
[snip]
>It appears that what is supported is the h
There is an example of exactly what you're trying to do in the MMC
library found at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mmclibrary/
They have an ActiveX Forms Shim that hosts WinForms controls. The source
code is all there, and is reasonable straightforward.
Hope that helps.
--
Chris Mullins
---
Does anyone know of any LIGHTWEIGHT encryption Remoting Sink that's out
there (hopefully open source)? It's for our DMZ, we're using Remoting
internally, and it does have outside client access, hence the need for
encryption. But it's all very performance sensitive, hence the desire for
it to be lig
I am trying to add the Internet Explorer Webcontrols to my Visual
Studio.net ver. 2002. But when I select the assembly
"Microsoft.Web.UI.WEbControls.dll" to add I get the message "There are
no components in
C:\...\Microsoft.Web.UI.WEbControls.dll that can be added to the
toolbox.
Has anyone t
I don't have experience doing this specific thing, so I can't necessarily
tell you what the best approach is. However, I'd suggest you re-think the
decision to use LoadFrom instead of Load.
What resources were suggesting you use Assembly.LoadFrom? It has some
advantages, but it introduces some c
If you are using the thread pool, you don't need to create any threads yourself. The
thread pool will create threads (up to the maximimum) so that QueueUserWorkItem will
usually either find or create a thread to use; only if you have more simultaneous work
requests than the max # of threads wil
Folks... I'm having difficulty attempting to display a WinForm user
control within the VS IDE Active X Control Test Container via an Active
X OCX. I can display the WinForm user control directly within the test
container and can execute its public methods. However, due to the nature
of the problem
John Elliot wrote:
> Is there any safeguard in place that could catch this type of
> thing?
As long as you don't use "unsafe" code, there is no way to get in
trouble with a ref to a struct (they are always local to one thread).
Except, of course, by calling a native method that hangs on the point
>> Just thinking out loud, but might it have something to do
>> with threading concerns? If I hand out a reference to
>> something on my stack to a strange API how do I know that
>> it will finish with it before my stack changes..
>
>But it isn't a strange API. After all, presumably the Managed Dir
John Elliot wrote:
> >Now the question is, since SomeRandomBoxApi takes a pointer to a
> >_D3DBOX (which is equivalent to a pointer to a Box), why pass in
> >the Box by value?
>
> Just thinking out loud, but might it have something to do
> with threading concerns? If I hand out a reference to som
Frans Bouma wrote:
> Ok, I see your point.
>
> It is indeed weird, I didn't notice that, my appologies.
> If you look at Volume.LockBox() for example you see this:
>
> public GraphicsStream LockBox(Box box, LockFlags flags)
> {
> return this.LockBoxInternal(ref box, flags, 0);
> }
>
> Indeed w
>Now the question is, since SomeRandomBoxApi takes a pointer to a
>_D3DBOX (which is equivalent to a pointer to a Box), why pass in
>the Box by value?
Just thinking out loud, but might it have something to do with threading
concerns? If I hand out a reference to something on my stack to a
strange
Ok, I see your point.
It is indeed weird, I didn't notice that, my appologies.
If you look at Volume.LockBox() for example you see this:
public GraphicsStream LockBox(Box box, LockFlags flags)
{
return this.LockBoxInternal(ref box, flags, 0);
}
Indeed weird why the box has to be passed by valu
Stefan Holdermans wrote:
> JF> I would argue that the behavior described by the original
> JF> poster is in fact a bug. The spec says (part. I 8.5.3.1
> JF> Visibility Of Type): "The visibility of a type definer is the
> JF> same as that for the type from which it was generated." (as I
>
Frans Bouma wrote:
> Why is it irrelevant, if I may ask?
It's irrelevant to the question that we were discussing (which was "why
did MS design the Managed DirectX API like this?").
> Well, perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the reason why
> D3DMATRIX is defined as:
> [StructLayo
Frans Bouma wrote:
> Although there is one weird thing:
> (and you know more on this than I do I think): the D3D structs are
> redefined in these formats:
>
> [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential, Size=24, Pack=1),
> CLSCompliant(false), MiscellaneousBits(65), DebugInfoInPDB]
> public struc
Hi all,
JF> I would argue that the behavior described by the original
JF> poster is in fact a bug. The spec says (part. I 8.5.3.1
JF> Visibility Of Type): "The visibility of a type definer is the
JF> same as that for the type from which it was generated." (as I
JF> understand it, an arra
> Frans Bouma wrote:
> > > > Because the DX api is a COM api,
> > >
> > > We're talking about the *Managed* DirectX API. So your entire
> > > message doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > Erm, that api is a wrapper around DX COM.
>
> I know, but that's irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevan
> Frans Bouma wrote:
> > Because the DX api is a COM api,
>
> We're talking about the *Managed* DirectX API. So your entire
> message doesn't make any sense.
Although there is one weird thing:
(and you know more on this than I do I think): the D3D structs are
redefined in these formats:
Frans Bouma wrote:
> > > Because the DX api is a COM api,
> >
> > We're talking about the *Managed* DirectX API. So your entire
> > message doesn't make any sense.
>
> Erm, that api is a wrapper around DX COM.
I know, but that's irrelevant.
> For the main logic it calls into the COM ob
> Frans Bouma wrote:
> > Because the DX api is a COM api,
>
> We're talking about the *Managed* DirectX API. So your entire
> message doesn't make any sense.
Erm, that api is a wrapper around DX COM. For the main logic it
calls into the COM objects. Try f.e. to decompile the Direct3D
Bas
Frans Bouma wrote:
> Because the DX api is a COM api,
We're talking about the *Managed* DirectX API. So your entire message
doesn't make any sense.
Regards,
Jeroen
===
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com
Some .NET courses you may be inter
> Taken
>
> But in this particular case, being heavy matrix opreations in
> 3d, this kills your performance.
If you want performance, write a shader and do your matrix
manipulations on the GPU or call into a C++ matrix lib. I also don't
really see why classes would kill performance reall
Taken
But in this particular case, being heavy matrix opreations in 3d, this
kills your performance.
Purity is nice, but here we talk of criticals, too.
Thomas Tomiczek
THONA Software & Consulting Ltd.
(Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)
(CTO PowerNodes Ltd.)
> -Original Message-
> From: Unmoderat
> I think the main issue here is that teh DirectX API (which
> this was about in the beginning) does not pass the structy by ref.
>
> Looks like a tremendous oversight to me.
>
> The rest then is basically a logical extension of standard
> .NET semantics (structs copied onto stack) and not per
I think the main issue here is that teh DirectX API (which this was about in the
beginning) does not pass the structy by ref.
Looks like a tremendous oversight to me.
The rest then is basically a logical extension of standard .NET semantics (structs
copied onto stack) and not perfect optimizat
Jeroen Frijters wrote:
> Arlie Davis wrote:
> > Or does it ever simply pass a pointer to the structure?
>
> In theory it could do this optimization in some cases, but I
> don't think
> it is likely that they'll do it in practice. If you want to pass large
> structures, you can always pass them by r
Hi Dinesh,
It is a bit hard to see what going on but I'll give it a shot...
You wrote:
Keep in invoking Collector ( CollectAdapterMessages)
Does this mean that you are repeatly invoking CollecterAdapterMessages?
If so, than this can be the reason why ReceiveAllMessages creates more
than 1 threa
44 matches
Mail list logo
