Create Folders and Write To Hard Disk Other than C:
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Paul Clement on 10 Mar 2010 08:07 On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:44:18 -0500, "mayayana" <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: � > > I didn't state a preference, simply a couple of alternatives. � > � > There's that intellectual dishonesty again. � > � � On the other hand, there's something to be said � for different approaches. Bee could switch to .Net � and get the benefit of that 300MB wrapper. Then he � could use the famous Interop to wrap wshom.ocx � (wscript.shell), which wraps the call to ShellExecute, � to call xcacls, which wraps the call to the permissions � APIs. That way he'd have a "modern, up-to-date and � supported solution". :) � ShellExecute? Isn't that somewhat dated? ;-) He could just use Process.Start with the WaitForExit method if he wanted to run the scripts. The one MS KB article I found for .NET (C#) uses ADSI. It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers for this API stuff isn't it. Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: mayayana on 10 Mar 2010 08:56 > He could just use Process.Start with the WaitForExit method if he wanted to run the scripts. The one > MS KB article I found for .NET (C#) uses ADSI. > How ...interesting. With .Net salesmen like you, who needs detractors? > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers for this API stuff isn't it. > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) > I'm not doing either. Odd, huh?
From: Paul Clement on 10 Mar 2010 09:15 On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:56:14 -0500, "mayayana" <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: � > He could just use Process.Start with the WaitForExit method if he wanted � to run the scripts. The one � > MS KB article I found for .NET (C#) uses ADSI. � > � � How ...interesting. With .Net salesmen like you, � who needs detractors? You brought it up. � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers for � this API stuff isn't it. � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) � > � � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? � Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: mayayana on 10 Mar 2010 10:09 > > � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers for > � this API stuff isn't it. > � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) > � > � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? > � > Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) > If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. > Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. Let me see if I've got this straight. You've just defended the choice of running VBScripts (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as preferable to using the API for setting permissions. ....And you equate your 300 MB script hack with using the VB intrinsic controls...because both involve wrappers. I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am I actually having this conversation with a computer program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed!
From: Paul Clement on 10 Mar 2010 11:05
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:09:57 -0500, "mayayana" <mayayana(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: � > � > � > It's really a shame that Microsoft wrote COM and .NET code wrappers � for � > � this API stuff isn't it. � > � > Otherwise, we would all be coding in C++. ;-) � > � � > � I'm not doing either. Odd, huh? � > � � > Is that supposed to be intellectual honesty? ;-) � � > If you are using VB 6.0 then you are certainly using COM wrappers. � > � � Ah, the famous Paul C. context switcheroo. � � Let me see if I've got this straight. You've � just defended the choice of running VBScripts � (that are shelling to sysadmin applets) via your � 300 MB slop of superfluous wrappers, as � preferable to using the API for setting permissions. No actually I was replying with sarcasm to your sarcasm with respect to .NET. My actual suggestions, both VBScript and COM ADSI, have nothing to do with .NET. � ...And you equate your 300 MB script hack with � using the VB intrinsic controls...because both � involve wrappers. Actually, the 300 MB script hack (whatever that means) was your idea. ;-) You seemed to have an issue with implementing VBScript, COM or .NET solutions and I was simply pointing out that all of these options are viable. Your preference for using the Windows API is fine, but the tone of your replies to the other suggestions seems to be somewhat snobbish. � I understand now. You're a binary thinker! Am � I actually having this conversation with a computer � program? .... Oh... my.... I'm so embarassed! � Maybe *you* should try binary thinking...or maybe not. ;-) Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic) |