Adding a toolbar?
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: use mjwpdf to edit and modify existing pdf file
Next: How do I display full paths instead of the truncated (tilde) forma
From: Nobody on 3 Feb 2010 13:53 "Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:cm7hm51cr12vfuq5qegarta2hmvh1lvpii(a)4ax.com... > One of my criteria though is I want to distribute only a single VB6 > exe. This code appears to want an OCX and several DLLs for > distribution with your VB6 exe. Before I spend too much time hacking > it are there any suggestions or alternatives? You can always move UserControls from OCX projects to be part of a Standard EXE project. Also, the common controls are part of Windows 95+, so you can use them provided that you go the API route. However, anything that is created using the API function CreateWindow(Ex) will not cause Validate event to fire in other controls, and pressing tab would skip the API-created window. If you want Validate event and tab to work, you have to apply IOLEInPlaceActiveObject trick so VB can "see" the control. Search the web for "vb IOLEInPlaceActiveObject" for a solution. If you want to use the Toolbar that is part of the common controls or the CoolBar without using the OCX that came with VB and without having to distribute anything, download the following VB source library, and check out CToolbarCtl.cls and CRebarCtl.cls(CoolBar). Check out "explorer" sample in "demos" folder. You need to set CBX_DEBUGWINDOWPROC to 0 in the project's properties Make tab to run the demo, and remove the reference to the missing library. This library also implements all the common controls, but the ones at vbaccelerator site are nicer. This library implements the controls as classes, while vbaccelerator site implement them as UserControls. If you need to apply IOLEInPlaceActiveObject trick, you can only apply it to UserControls, so either you have to use a UserControl version, or convert the class to UserControl. http://sourceforge.net/projects/codebox/
From: Tony Toews [MVP] on 3 Feb 2010 14:15 Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: >>> One of my criteria though is I want to distribute only a single VB6 >>> exe. >> >> While I understand wanting to limit the dependencies your app has, OCXs exist >> to be used. There's nothing wrong with using them. > >Tony has explained "countless" times that a specific *feature* of his >application is admin-free installation. I've only stated that about 5 or 7 times. MikeD may not have read those postings or realized that I was the same person posting now as then. I know what I'm like on the newsgroups and such. I don't pay any attention to the posters names unless they are particularly brilliant or particularly stupid or annoying. <smile> I don't think I qualify too much on any of those criteria. <bigger smile> I once got a Fidonet netmail (email) from someone saying "Hi Cuz, how you doing?" in response to my reply to him in an Access echo. (Echo being Fidonet terminology for newsgroup/forum. This would've been about 1993 or so.) My first thought was, who the heck is this jerk calling me cuz. Then I looked at his name and realized that yes indeed he was my cousin. Just not a Mennonite last name like most of my cousins. >In other words, it's being >marketed directly to people with Nazi IT departments standing in the >way of them doing their job. I support your position of course, but >you also gotta respect the desire to eliminate the need for admin >intervention, in particular with the explosive growth of the least >rights movement. Well, that's a bit harsh of a comment about my software and the IT departments. I just started building that utility about ten years ago. And I just took the route of not requiring any controls or such because I didn't have much of a GUI until recently. I don't trust the MS controls given the versioning problems we've encountered over last decide and a half. And until you sent me an emailed comment along those lines it just hadn't occurred to me that emphasize that my utility doesn't require any installation or admin privileges. Mind you, due to your email, I did decide to create that paragraph emphasizing that aspect. So thanks for the email. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/ Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
From: Karl E. Peterson on 3 Feb 2010 17:07 Tony Toews [MVP] wrote: > Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > >>>> One of my criteria though is I want to distribute only a single VB6 >>>> exe. >>> >>> While I understand wanting to limit the dependencies your app has, OCXs >>> exist to be used. There's nothing wrong with using them. >> >> Tony has explained "countless" times that a specific *feature* of his >> application is admin-free installation. > > I've only stated that about 5 or 7 times. Well, *I* haven't counted. <g> > MikeD may not have read > those postings or realized that I was the same person posting now as > then. He's pretty attentive. I never underestimate that, with him. > I know what I'm like on the newsgroups and such. I don't pay > any attention to the posters names unless they are particularly > brilliant or particularly stupid or annoying. <smile> Well, there is that, yeah. <bg> > I don't think > I qualify too much on any of those criteria. <bigger smile> Not sure whether withholding comment is a good or a bad move? <vbg> > I once got a Fidonet netmail (email) from someone saying "Hi Cuz, how > you doing?" in response to my reply to him in an Access echo. (Echo > being Fidonet terminology for newsgroup/forum. This would've been > about 1993 or so.) My first thought was, who the heck is this jerk > calling me cuz. Then I looked at his name and realized that yes > indeed he was my cousin. Just not a Mennonite last name like most of > my cousins. Heh, that's almost worse than any I've pulled. Heheheheh... >> In other words, it's being >> marketed directly to people with Nazi IT departments standing in the >> way of them doing their job. I support your position of course, but >> you also gotta respect the desire to eliminate the need for admin >> intervention, in particular with the explosive growth of the least >> rights movement. > > Well, that's a bit harsh of a comment about my software and the IT > departments. Okay, I'm sorry about that. I realize that might not be very good marketing, should a client start googling. I do tend to drive a point right into the ground, don't I? <mumble> > I just started building that utility about ten years > ago. And I just took the route of not requiring any controls or such > because I didn't have much of a GUI until recently. I don't trust > the MS controls given the versioning problems we've encountered over > last decide and a half. > > And until you sent me an emailed comment along those lines it just > hadn't occurred to me that emphasize that my utility doesn't require > any installation or admin privileges. Mind you, due to your email, I > did decide to create that paragraph emphasizing that aspect. So > thanks for the email. I'll always take all the thanks, but none of the blame! ;-) -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: MikeD on 4 Feb 2010 08:30 "Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:lcijm5dmspq1t2414jo27rpvvhedb00pto(a)4ax.com... > Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: > >>>> One of my criteria though is I want to distribute only a single VB6 >>>> exe. >>> >>> While I understand wanting to limit the dependencies your app has, OCXs >>> exist >>> to be used. There's nothing wrong with using them. >> >>Tony has explained "countless" times that a specific *feature* of his >>application is admin-free installation. > > I've only stated that about 5 or 7 times. MikeD may not have read > those postings or realized that I was the same person posting now as > then. I recall Tony having mentioned in the past not wanting to use OCXs or any other dependencies. Not sure I ever knew why. > > I once got a Fidonet netmail (email) from someone saying "Hi Cuz, how > you doing?" in response to my reply to him in an Access echo. (Echo > being Fidonet terminology for newsgroup/forum. This would've been > about 1993 or so.) My first thought was, who the heck is this jerk > calling me cuz. Then I looked at his name and realized that yes > indeed he was my cousin. Just not a Mennonite last name like most of > my cousins. > >>In other words, it's being >>marketed directly to people with Nazi IT departments standing in the >>way of them doing their job. I support your position of course, but >>you also gotta respect the desire to eliminate the need for admin >>intervention, in particular with the explosive growth of the least >>rights movement. > I've had to deal with admins who lock down systems very tightly. In those cases, it's put to the controller or CFO in terms they can understand: Sure, we can write this app to not require dependencies, such that basically all that is needed is to copy the EXE somewhere. But, it's going to take 10, or 20, or 50 hours longer and therefore cost you thousands of dollars more (our rate for most clients is $150/hr) since we'll have to write functionality that already exists in an OCX. In most cases, our apps are installed on a terminal server and users run them from that. This means the users themselves are only standard users and updating only requires a single installation be updated. And in 99.9% of those cases, we can do this remotely, so we don't even need to make a trip out to the client (which they appreciate because we charge them driving time and mileage). > Well, that's a bit harsh of a comment about my software and the IT > departments. I just started building that utility about ten years > ago. And I just took the route of not requiring any controls or such > because I didn't have much of a GUI until recently. I don't trust > the MS controls given the versioning problems we've encountered over > last decide and a half. What versioning problems are you referring to? I've NEVER in well over 10 years encountered problems with distributing OCXs. It sounds like this is mostly just a restriction you've placed on yourself. How much additional time are you having to spend writing code to duplicate functionality that you can easily incorporate simply by dropping in an OCX? It just seems silly to me. But if that's what you choose to do, who are any of us to tell you otherwise? -- Mike
From: Karl E. Peterson on 4 Feb 2010 14:14
MikeD wrote: >>>Tony has explained "countless" times that a specific *feature* of his >>>application is admin-free installation. >> >> I've only stated that about 5 or 7 times. MikeD may not have read >> those postings or realized that I was the same person posting now as >> then. > > I recall Tony having mentioned in the past not wanting to use OCXs or any > other dependencies. Not sure I ever knew why. Sorry if my response sounded harsh. Wasn't meant that way. >>>In other words, it's being >>>marketed directly to people with Nazi IT departments standing in the >>>way of them doing their job. I support your position of course, but >>>you also gotta respect the desire to eliminate the need for admin >>>intervention, in particular with the explosive growth of the least >>>rights movement. > > I've had to deal with admins who lock down systems very tightly. In those > cases, it's put to the controller or CFO in terms they can understand: Sure, > we can write this app to not require dependencies, such that basically all > that is needed is to copy the EXE somewhere. But, it's going to take 10, or > 20, or 50 hours longer and therefore cost you thousands of dollars more (our > rate for most clients is $150/hr) since we'll have to write functionality > that already exists in an OCX. That approach can work very well in some cases, especially as you describe. But it's pointless to even try in others. I'm thinking, your basic "line" workers who are just doing their job, and using Access (or other such VBAish tools) to augment it. Not hired gun programmers billing $150/hr. Hmmm, re-reading what I'm responding to <g>, I see we're definitely coming at it from two different angles. You're still talking about getting an OCX installed. I'm talking about the ability of *users* to get software running without needing to do any installs. Very different perspectives. > It sounds like this is mostly just a restriction you've placed on yourself. > How much additional time are you having to spend writing code to duplicate > functionality that you can easily incorporate simply by dropping in an OCX? I guess I can relate, because I tend to write my own as well. I did relent in the case of a virtual grid in one recent project, because I just don't care enough about UI to invest what it would've taken in that case. <g> But I've hated having to distribute that sucker! I'd far rather just copy the EXE across and be done with it. (This is an inhouse project.) -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org |