Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Non-DDE IPC?
mandrav:
What are the DDE problems that caused this post?
Can someone enlighten me? Thomas?
TheNullinator:
--- Quote from: mandrav on March 30, 2006, 02:44:44 pm ---What are the DDE problems that caused this post?
Can someone enlighten me? Thomas?
--- End quote ---
The only remaining DDE problems that I've managed to come across is when default.conf gets deleted (but associations are already set) and when DDE is turned off on the command line. The former is caused by the compiler selection dialog and the latter is caused because the DDE part of the associations still exist in the registry so Windows thinks Code::Blocks still uses DDE. At least both of these issues were present last time I checked (2 days ago).
By the way, wouldn't it be easier to use WM_COPYDATA? Or is doing this using wxWidgets a PITA? The window can be easily found using FindWindow() if you know the class name and a dummy (hidden) window could be set up before the main wxWidgets frame is up and running to catch messages that may happen while the program is initializing. The dummy window could be destroyed as soon as the wxWidgets frame is up. That last bit depends on whether or not you can specify a window class name in wxWidgets and add your own WindowProc() style code to handle the WM_COPYDATA message.
I'll go have a look in the wxWidgets docs for that last bit to see if it is supported for the Windows wxWidgets.
Cheers
sethjackson:
--- Quote from: Der Meister on March 30, 2006, 02:35:08 pm ---Does any desktop-firewall block tcp/ip traffic from and to 127.0.0.1?
--- End quote ---
Yes mine does, and it asks me wether to permit traffic or not. I agree with thomas. It gives a negative impression.
Der Meister:
I wonder why a desktop firewall blocks traffic that only uses 127.0.0.1 as source and destination. This doesn't make any sense as neither this traffic can go out of this machine nor can any traffic from outside come to this process.
But anyway, as these damn firewall at least report such traffic it is really not a good solution.
thomas:
--- Quote from: mandrav on March 30, 2006, 02:44:44 pm ---What are the DDE problems that caused this post?
Can someone enlighten me? Thomas?
--- End quote ---
Well, we're having one issue after the other (the broken batch builds being the last in a long row) and somehow every problem seems to be related in some way to either DDE directly or a change which was necessary to make DDE work. Maybe that's just my impression, but it looks to me that way. :lol:
I mean, this is just a proposal, we don't need go that way if there are any objections. But isn't it at least worth thinking about? I believe we might get a solution which is a lot less painful (and could implement the same thing for Linux with minimal changes, too). We would also need less registry tampering :)
--- Quote ---I wonder why a desktop firewall blocks traffic that only uses 127.0.0.1 as source and destination.
--- End quote ---
That is what I call SIS ("self-important software"). Firewalls and Antivirus software does that to stress its own importance. I suspect that antivirus scans are being made extra slow on purpose, too, for the same reason. You have to see that it is working hard. If there is never a network alert and a scans of your entire hard disk finishes in 5 minutes, then it can't be any good.
If you weren't being told that the software just saved your life again every 5 minutes, then you would not be willing to spend money on a product that makes your PC 30% slower...
"Warning: Spooler subsystem is trying to access the internet: 127.0.0.1. View detailled threat information?"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version