ActiveX EXE Books etc?
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Fast way to delete files
Next: 'MappingInfo
From: mayayana on 26 Oct 2009 10:44 > Windows Mail was Outlook express under a new name. Windows Live Mail is > a slightly enhanced version. > Thanks. It's confusing, especially since MS seems to have stuck a "live" sticker, willy nilly, on all sorts of things. That despite the fact that Windows Live Mail seems to be an *offline*, installed program and not part of the "Live" program at all. (And it's not clear -- from Microsoft's info. page or from wikipedia -- what the "enhancements" are, other than the loss of ability to read email headers. :) This page lists newsreaders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Usenet_newsreaders Maybe some people reading this from Google groups or Microsoft "communities" webpages will be interested. I'm still not clear about Bee's situation, though. He seems to be reading web-based groups, but I didn't find any indication in the descriptions of Windows Live Mail that it can't handle NNTP.
From: Karl E. Peterson on 26 Oct 2009 17:24 Dee Earley wrote: > On 23/10/2009 19:20, mayayana wrote: >>> why? well because that is how i first learned to access this newsgtroup. >>> I have Windows Live Mail that has newsreader. >> >> I've never used Windows Mail. Is that the same as >> Windows Live Mail? I thought it was just Vista's >> renamed Outlook Express. > > Windows Mail was Outlook express under a new name. Windows Live Mail is > a slightly enhanced version. Depends on one's definition of "enhanced" I suppose... -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Eduardo on 26 Oct 2009 17:33 Karl E. Peterson escribi�: > Dee Earley wrote: >> On 23/10/2009 19:20, mayayana wrote: >>>> why? well because that is how i first learned to access this newsgtroup. >>>> I have Windows Live Mail that has newsreader. >>> I've never used Windows Mail. Is that the same as >>> Windows Live Mail? I thought it was just Vista's >>> renamed Outlook Express. >> Windows Mail was Outlook express under a new name. Windows Live Mail is >> a slightly enhanced version. > > Depends on one's definition of "enhanced" I suppose... In this case it means "some features resticted".
From: Bee on 26 Oct 2009 17:36
If there was an award for Discussion Best Thread I think this one would win. Thanks to both of you for this most educational discussion. Each of you provides a missing chapter from any book I have every seen. I am still digesting it all and will try to incorporate your suggestions into my project once I get my brain fully wrapped around it. Thanks again. I hope it is not too burried that others might not see it and benefit. "Schmidt" wrote: > > "mayayana" <mayaXXyana(a)rcXXn.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:%23XM6qWdVKHA.844(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > You may see something I missed, but is there > > any reason that the complexity you're suggesting > > is necessary and the simpler method I posted > > can't be used? I only wrote it as "air code", but > > it seems to work fine. > > Your code should work fine too of course - I would > (presumably) have written it exactly this way, if I wanted to > implement a "fast solution with an expected lifetime that > is not all that large". > But you probably know yourself, how such seemingly > "throw-away-projects" grow sometimes - they just don't > want to die... ;-) > > Your class C1 does basically the same as cEvtWrapper. > You will need such a small (indirect) Event-Receiver-class > in either case, to be able to aggregate Events of other > Objects somehow - so, not much difference here. > > The only thing which is basically different between > our approaches is, that you spare out the cFactory, > and let the Form-Class do its work instead (directly). > But that in turn requires your C1-Class, to *know* the > concrete Class-Interface of your Form (Form1) ... Now, if > you want to use your C1 implementation also in other Forms > (i.e Form2 or Form3), then you would have to rewrite or > adapt your C1-EventDelegation-code. > > In my opinion the additional cFactory leads to a cleaner > implementation, since you could (re)use such a Factory > in any Form- or Class-module, not only in an "especially > adapted Form1". Also, cEvtWrapper, as well as cFactory > could be moved outside of the Main-project (into an > ActiveX-Dll) without problems (in case you'd want to go > there - i.e. if your project-code grows - and the factory- > construct + some additions here an there became proven > and stable over time). > > Aside from that, Bee asked directly for explanations of the > "factory-term" or "factory-patterns" others have brought up. > I just tried to fill that pattern with some life, focussing > a bit on his concrete scenario. Introducing a Form as the > final "factory-endpoint" where everything is glued together > in the end, just didn't seem right to me in this "please explain > a factory"-context. > A dedicated class with an appropriate name, encapsulating > the details "away" and thereby able to disburden the Form- > (GUI)Code to some extend, seemed more reasonable to me. > > Also in your example the "constructor-effect" of a dedicated > factory is not addressed ... i.e. you need this codelines: > Set a1(0) = New C1 > a1(0).ID1 = 0 > a1(0).StartTime 2000 > > Set a1(1) = New C1 > a1(1).ID1 = 1 > a1(1).StartTime 5000 > > ....where with a fully implemented cFactory you could write: > oFactory.AddThread 0, 2000 > oFactory.AddThread 1, 5000 > > Just my 2 cents, hope no offense is taken...;-) > > > Olaf > > > > . > |