Search Results

Search found 53463 results on 2139 pages for 'net generics'.

Page 199/2139 | < Previous Page | 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206  | Next Page >

  • Delphi: RTTI and TObjectList<TObject>

    - by conciliator
    Based on one answer to an earlier post, I'm investigating the possibility of the following design TChildClass = class(TObject) private FField1: string; FField2: string; end; TMyClass = class(TObject) private FField1: TChildClass; FField2: TObjectList<TChildClass>; end; Now, in the real world, TMyClass will have 10 different lists like this, so I would like to be able to address these lists using RTTI. However, I'm not interested in the other fields of this class, so I need to check if a certain field is some sort of TObjectList. This is what I've got so far: procedure InitializeClass(RContext: TRttiContext; AObject: TObject); var ROwnerType: TRttiType; RObjListType: TRttiType; RField: TRttiField; SchInf: TSchemaInfoDetail; begin ROwnerType := RContext.GetType(AObject.ClassInfo); RObjListType := RContext.GetType(TObjectList<TObject>); for RField in ROwnerType.GetFields do begin // How do I check if the type of TMyClass.FField2 (which is TObjectList<TChildClass>) is some sort of TObjectList? end; Clearly, RField.FieldType <> RObjListType.FieldType. However, they do have some relation, don't they? It seems horrible (and wrong!) to make a very elaborate check for common functionality in order to make it highly probable that RField.FieldType is in fact a TObjectList. To be honest, I am quite uncomfortable with generics, so the question might be very naïve. However, I'm more than happy to learn. Is the above solution possible to implement? TIA!

    Read the article

  • Annotation to make available generic type

    - by mdma
    Given an generic interface like interface DomainObjectDAO<T> { T newInstance(); add(T t); remove(T t); T findById(int id); // etc... } I'd like to create a subinterface that specifies the type parameter: interface CustomerDAO extends DomainObjectDAO<Customer> { // customer-specific queries - incidental. } The implementation needs to know the actual template parameter type, but of course type erasure means isn't available at runtime. Is there some annotation that I could include to declare the interface type? Something like @GenericParameter(Customer.class) interface CustomerDAO extends DomainObjectDAO<Customer> { } The implementation could then fetch this annotation from the interface and use it as a substitute for runtime generic type access. Some background: This interface is implemented using JDK dynamic proxies as outlined here. The non-generic version of this interface has been working well, but it would be nicer to use generics and not have to create a subinterface for each domain object type. The actual type is needed at runtime to implement the newInstance method, amongst others.

    Read the article

  • Accessing Static Methods on a Generic class in c#

    - by mrlane
    Hello, I have the following situation in code, which I suspect may be a bit dodgey: I have a class: abstract class DataAccessBase<T> : IDataAccess where T : AnotherAbstractClass This class DataAccessBase also has a static factory method which creates instances of derived classes of itself using an enum value in a which statement to decide which derived type to create: static IDataAccess CreateInstance(TypeToCreateEnum) Now, the types derived from DataAccessBase<T> are themselves NOT generic, they specify a type for T: class PoLcZoneData : DataAccessBase<PoLcZone> // PoLcZone is derived from AnotherAbstractClass So far I am not sure if this is pushing the limits of good use of generics, but what I am really concerned about is how to access the static CreateInstance() method in the first place: The way I am doing this at the moment is to simply pass any type T where T : AnotherAbstractClass. In particular I am passing AnotherAbstractClass itself. This allows compilation just fine, but it does seem to me that passing any type to a generic class just to get at the statics is a bit dodgey. I have actually simplified the situation somewhat as DataAccessBase<T> is the lower level in the inheritance chain, but the static factory methods exists in a middle tier with classes such as PoLcZoneData being the most derived on the only level that is not generic. What are peoples thoughts on this arrangement?

    Read the article

  • Java Generic Casting Type Mismatch

    - by Kay
    public class MaxHeap<T extends Comparable<T>> implements Heap<T>{ private T[] heap; private int lastIndex; public void main(String[] args){ int i; T[] arr = {1,3,4,5,2}; //ERROR HERE ******* foo } public T[] Heapsort(T[]anArray, int n){ // build initial heap T[]sortedArray = anArray; for (int i = n-1; i< 0; i--){ //assert: the tree rooted at index is a semiheap heapRebuild(anArray, i, n); //assert: the tree rooted at index is a heap } //sort the heap array int last = n-1; //invariant: Array[0..last] is a heap, //Array[last+1..n-1] is sorted for (int j=1; j<n-1;j++) { sortedArray[0]=sortedArray[last]; last--; heapRebuild(anArray, 0, last); } return sortedArray; } protected void heapRebuild(T[ ] items, int root, int size){ foo } } The error is on the line with "T[arr] = {1,3,4,5,2}" Eclispe complains that there is a: "Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to T" I've tried to casting nearly everywhere but to no avail.A simple way out would be to not use generics but instead just ints but that's sadly not an option. I've got to find a way to resolve the array of ints "{1,3,4,5,2}" into an array of T so that the rest of my code will work smoothly.

    Read the article

  • Generic object to object mapping with parametrized constructor

    - by Rody van Sambeek
    I have a data access layer which returns an IDataRecord. I have a WCF service that serves DataContracts (dto's). These DataContracts are initiated by a parametrized constructor containing the IDataRecord as follows: [DataContract] public class DataContractItem { [DataMember] public int ID; [DataMember] public string Title; public DataContractItem(IDataRecord record) { this.ID = Convert.ToInt32(record["ID"]); this.Title = record["title"].ToString(); } } Unfortanately I can't change the DAL, so I'm obliged to work with the IDataRecord as input. But in generat this works very well. The mappings are pretty simple most of the time, sometimes they are a bit more complex, but no rocket science. However, now I'd like to be able to use generics to instantiate the different DataContracts to simplify the WCF service methods. I want to be able to do something like: public T DoSomething<T>(IDataRecord record) { ... return new T(record); } So I'd tried to following solutions: Use a generic typed interface with a constructor. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a constructor in an interface Use a static method to instantiate the DataContract and create a typed interface containing this static method. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a static method in an interface Use a generic typed interface containing the new() constraint doesn't work: new() constraint cannot contain a parameter (the IDataRecord) Using a factory object to perform the mapping based on the DataContract Type. does work, but: not very clean, because I now have a switch statement with all mappings in one file. I can't find a real clean solution for this. Can somebody shed a light on this for me? The project is too small for any complex mapping techniques and too large for a "switch-based" factory implementation.

    Read the article

  • How to find the first declaring method for a reference method

    - by Oliver Gierke
    Suppose you have a generic interface and an implementation: public interface MyInterface<T> { void foo(T param); } public class MyImplementation<T> implements MyInterface<T> { void foo(T param) { } } These two types are frework types. In the next step I want allow users to extend that interface as well as redeclare foo(T param) to maybe equip it with further annotations. public interface MyExtendedInterface extends MyInterface<Bar> { @Override void foo(Bar param); // Further declared methods } I create an AOP proxy for the extended interface and intercept especially the calls to furtherly declared methods. As foo(…) is no redeclared in MyExtendedInterface I cannot execute it by simply invoking MethodInvocation.proceed() as the instance of MyImplementation only implements MyInterface.foo(…) and not MyExtendedInterface.foo(…). So is there a way to get access to the method that declared a method initially? Regarding this example is there a way to find out that foo(Bar param) was declared in MyInterface originally and get access to the accoriding Method instance? I already tried to scan base class methods to match by name and parameter types but that doesn't work out as generics pop in and MyImplementation.getMethod("foo", Bar.class) obviously throws a NoSuchMethodException. I already know that MyExtendedInterface types MyInterface to Bar. So If I could create some kind of "typed view" on MyImplementation my math algorithm could work out actually.

    Read the article

  • How to get a Class literal from a generically specific Class

    - by h2g2java
    There are methods like these which require Class literals as argument. Collection<EmpInfo> emps = SomeSqlUtil.select( EmpInfo.class, "select * from emps"); or GWT.create(Razmataz.class); The problem presents itself when I need to supply generic specific classes like EmpInfo<String> Razmataz<Integer> The following would be wrong syntax Collection<EmpInfo<String>> emps = SomeSqlUtil.select( EmpInfo<String>.class, "select * from emps"); or GWT.create(Razmataz<Integer>.class); Because you cannot do syntax like Razmataz<Integer>.class So, how would I be able to squeeze a class literal out of EmpInfo<String> Razmataz<Integer> so that I could feed them as arguments to methods requiring Class literals? Further info Okay, I confess that I am asking this primarily for GWT. I have a pair of GWT RPC interface Razmataz. (FYI, GWT RPC interface has to be defined in server-client pairs). I plan to use the same interface pair for communicating whether it be String, Integer, Boolean, etc. GWT.create(Razmataz) for Razmataz<T> complains that, since I did not specify T, GWT compiler treated it as Object. Then GWT compiler would not accept Object class. It needs to be more specific than being an Object. So, it seems there is no way for me to tell GWT.create what T is because a Class literal is a runtime concept while generics is a compile time concept, Right?

    Read the article

  • Are there pitfalls to using static class/event as an application message bus

    - by Doug Clutter
    I have a static generic class that helps me move events around with very little overhead: public static class MessageBus<T> where T : EventArgs { public static event EventHandler<T> MessageReceived; public static void SendMessage(object sender, T message) { if (MessageReceived != null) MessageReceived(sender, message); } } To create a system-wide message bus, I simply need to define an EventArgs class to pass around any arbitrary bits of information: class MyEventArgs : EventArgs { public string Message { get; set; } } Anywhere I'm interested in this event, I just wire up a handler: MessageBus<MyEventArgs>.MessageReceived += (s,e) => DoSomething(); Likewise, triggering the event is just as easy: MessageBus<MyEventArgs>.SendMessage(this, new MyEventArgs() {Message="hi mom"}); Using MessageBus and a custom EventArgs class lets me have an application wide message sink for a specific type of message. This comes in handy when you have several forms that, for example, display customer information and maybe a couple forms that update that information. None of the forms know about each other and none of them need to be wired to a static "super class". I have a couple questions: fxCop complains about using static methods with generics, but this is exactly what I'm after here. I want there to be exactly one MessageBus for each type of message handled. Using a static with a generic saves me from writing all the code that would maintain the list of MessageBus objects. Are the listening objects being kept "alive" via the MessageReceived event? For instance, perhaps I have this code in a Form.Load event: MessageBus<CustomerChangedEventArgs>.MessageReceived += (s,e) => DoReload(); When the Form is Closed, is the Form being retained in memory because MessageReceived has a reference to its DoReload method? Should I be removing the reference when the form closes: MessageBus<CustomerChangedEventArgs>.MessageReceived -= (s,e) => DoReload();

    Read the article

  • using STI and ActiveRecordBase<> with full FindAll

    - by oillio
    Is it possible to use generic support with single table inheritance, and still be able to FindAll of the base class? As a bonus question, will I be able to use ActiveRecordLinqBase< as well? I do love those queries. More detail: Say I have the following classes defined: public interface ICompany { int ID { get; set; } string Name { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord("companies", DiscriminatorColumn="type", DiscriminatorType="String", DiscriminatorValue="NA")] public abstract class Company<T> : ActiveRecordBase<T>, ICompany { [PrimaryKey] private int Id { get; set; } [Property] public String Name { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord(DiscriminatorValue="firm")] public class Firm : Company<Firm> { [Property] public string Description { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord(DiscriminatorValue="client")] public class Client : Company<Client> { [Property] public int ChargeRate { get; set; } } This works fine for most cases. I can do things like: var x = Client.FindAll(); But sometimes I want all of the companies. If I was not using generics I could do: var x = (Company[]) FindAll(Company); Client a = (Client)x[0]; Firm b = (Firm)x[1]; Is there a way to write a FindAll that returns an array of ICompany's that can then be typecast into their respective types? Something like: var x = (ICompany[]) FindAll(Company<ICompany>); Client a = (Client)x[0]; Or maybe I am going about implementing the generic support all wrong?

    Read the article

  • Having Issue with Bounded Wildcards in Generic

    - by Sanjiv
    I am new to Java Generics, and I'm currently experimenting with Generic Coding....final goal is to convert old Non-Generic legacy code to generic one... I have defined two Classes with IS-A i.e. one is sub-class of other. public class Parent { private String name; public Parent(String name) { super(); this.name = name; } } public class Child extends Parent{ private String address; public Child(String name, String address) { super(name); this.address = address; } } Now, I am trying to create a list with bounded Wildcard. and getting Compiler Error. List<? extends Parent> myList = new ArrayList<Child>(); myList.add(new Parent("name")); // compiler-error myList.add(new Child("name", "address")); // compiler-error myList.add(new Child("name", "address")); // compiler-error Bit confused. please help me on whats wrong with this ?

    Read the article

  • Can someone explain the declaration of these java generic methods?

    - by Tony Giaccone
    I'm reading "Generics in the Java Programming Language" by Gilad Bracha and I'm confused about a style of declaration. The following code is found on page 8: interface Collection<E> { public boolean containsAll(Collection<?> c); public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> c); } interface Collection<E> { public <T> boolean containsAll(Collection<T> c); public <T extends E> boolean addAll(Collection<T> c); // hey, type variables can have bounds too! } My point of confusion comes from the second declaration. It's not clear to me what the purpose the <T> declaration serves in the following line: public <T> boolean containsAll(Collection<T> c); The method already has a type (boolean) associated with it. Why would you use the <T> and what does it tell the complier? I think my question needs to be a bit more specific. Why would you write: public <T> boolean containsAll(Collection<T> c); vs public boolean containsAll(Collection<T> c); It's not clear to me, what the purpose of <T> is, in the first declaration of containsAll.

    Read the article

  • C# Multiple constraints

    - by John
    I have an application with lots of generics and IoC. I have an interface like this: public interface IRepository<TType, TKeyType> : IRepo Then I have a bunch of tests for my different implementations of IRepository. Many of the objects have dependencies on other objects so for the purpose of testing I want to just grab one that is valid. I can define a separate method for each of them: public static EmailType GetEmailType() { return ContainerManager.Container.Resolve<IEmailTypeRepository>().GetList().FirstOrDefault(); } But I want to make this generic so it can by used to get any object from the repository it works with. I defined this: public static R GetItem<T, R>() where T : IRepository<R, int> { return ContainerManager.Container.Resolve<T>().GetList().FirstOrDefault(); } This works fine for the implementations that use an integer for the key. But I also have repositories that use string. So, I do this now: public static R GetItem<T, R, W>() where T : IRepository<R, W> This works fine. But I'd like to restrict 'W' to either int or string. Is there a way to do that? The shortest question is, can I constrain a generic parameter to one of multiple types?

    Read the article

  • Serialization of generic types - GWT

    - by sarav
    I have an interface like this public interface IField<T> extends IsSerializable { public String getKey(); public void setKey(String name); public T getValue(); public void setValue(T role); } And a class like this public class FieldImpl<T> implements IField<T> { private String key; public String getKey() { return key; } public void setKey(String key) { this.key = key; } public T getValue() { return value; } public void setValue(T value) { this.value = value; } private T value; public FieldImpl() { } public FieldImpl(String key, T value) { super(); this.key = key; this.value = value; } } When I try to compile I'm getting [ERROR] In order to produce smaller client-side code, 'Object' is not allowed; please use a more specific type (reached via server.sdk.model.IField) What is the cause for this? Is there any place I can read about GWT's generics support?

    Read the article

  • How to use interfaces in exception handling

    - by vikp
    Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

    Read the article

  • I want a function to return a type of the subclass its invoked from

    - by Jay
    I want to have a function defined in a superclass that returns a value of the type of the subclass that is used to invoke the function. That is, say I have class A with a function plugh. Then I create subclasses B and C that extend A. I want B.plugh to return a B and C.plugh to return a C. Yes, they could return an A, but then the caller would have to either cast it to the right subtype, which is a pain when used a lot, or declare the receiving variable to be of the supertype, which loses type safety. So I was trying to do this with generics, writing something like this: class A<T extends A> { private T foo; public T getFoo() { return foo; } } class B extends A<B> { public void calcFoo() { foo=... whatever ... } } class C extends A<C> { public void calcFoo() { foo=... whatever ... } } This appears to work but it looks pretty ugly. For one thing, I get warnings on "class A". The compiler says that A is generic and I should specify the type. I guess it wants me to say "class A". But what would I put in for x? I think I could get stuck in an infinite loop here. It seems weird to write "class B extends A", but this causes no complaints, so maybe that's just fine. Is this the right way to do it? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • How do I cast from int to generic type Integer?

    - by Rob Kent
    I'm relatively new to Java and am used to generics in C# so have struggled a bit with this code. Basically I want a generic method for getting a stored Android preference by key and this code, albeit ugly, works for a Boolean but not an Integer, when it blows up with a ClassCastException. Can anyone tell me why this is wrong and maybe help me improve the whole routine (using wildcards?)? public static <T> T getPreference(Class<T> argType, String prefKey, T defaultValue, SharedPreferences sharedPreferences) { ... try { if (argType == Boolean.class) { Boolean def = (Boolean) defaultValue; return argType.cast(sharedPreferences.getBoolean(prefKey, def)); } else if (argType == Integer.class) { Integer def = (Integer) defaultValue; return argType.cast(sharedPreferences.getInt(prefKey, def)); } else { AppGlobal.logWarning("getPreference: Unknown type '%s' for preference '%s'. Returning default value.", argType.getName(), prefKey); return defaultValue; } } catch (ClassCastException e) { AppGlobal.logError("Cast exception when reading pref %s. Using default value.", prefKey); return defaultValue; } } I've tried various ways - using the native int, casting to an Integer, but nothing works.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I pass an object of type T to a method on an object of type <? extends T>?

    - by Matt
    In Java, assume I have the following class Container that contains a list of class Items: public class Container<T> { private List<Item<? extends T>> items; private T value; public Container(T value) { this.value = value; } public void addItem(Item item) { items.add(item); } public void doActions() { for (Item item : items) { item.doAction(value); } } } public abstract class Item<T> { public abstract void doAction(T item); } Eclipse gives the error: The method doAction(capture#1-of ? extends T) in the type Item is not applicable for the arguments (T) I've been reading generics examples and various postings around, but I still can't figure out why this isn't allowed. Eclipse also doesn't give any helpful tips in its proposed fix, either. The variable value is of type T, why wouldn't it be applicable for ? extends T?.

    Read the article

  • What else I must do allow my method to handle any type of objects

    - by NewHelpNeeder
    So to allow any type object I must use generics in my code. I have rewrote this method to do so, but then when I create an object, for example Milk, it won't let me pass it to my method. Ether there's something wrong with my generic revision, or Milk object I created is not good. How should I pass my object correctly and add it to linked list? This is a method that causes error when I insert an item: public void insertFirst(T dd) // insert at front of list { Link newLink = new Link(dd); // make new link if( isEmpty() ) // if empty list, last = newLink; // newLink <-- last else first.previous = newLink; // newLink <-- old first newLink.next = first; // newLink --> old first first = newLink; // first --> newLink } This is my class I try to insert into linked list: class Milk { String brand; double size; double price; Milk(String a, double b, double c) { brand = a; size = b; price = c; } } This is test method to insert the data: public static void main(String[] args) { // make a new list DoublyLinkedList theList = new DoublyLinkedList(); // this causes: // The method insertFirst(Comparable) in the type DoublyLinkedList is not applicable for the arguments (Milk) theList.insertFirst(new Milk("brand", 1, 2)); // insert at front theList.displayForward(); // display list forward theList.displayBackward(); // display list backward } // end main() } // end class DoublyLinkedApp Declarations: class Link<T extends Comparable<T>> {} class DoublyLinkedList<T extends Comparable<T>> {}

    Read the article

  • 404.2 Error after installing .net 4.0

    - by Dofs
    I have a project which I have upgraded to .Net 4.0, but when I try to access it, I retrieve the following error: HTTP Error 404.2 - Not Found The page you requested could not be displayed because of the settings for the list of ISAPI and CGI restrictions on web server. ErrorCode: 0x800704ec Handler PageHandlerFactory-ISAPI-4.0_32bit Do I need to do something extra to the IIS or APP pool, when converting an existing site to a .NET 4.0 site?

    Read the article

  • Uploadify (Session and authentication) with ASP.NET MVC

    - by Dragouf
    When I use Authorize filter on an action or a controller used by uplodify (http://www.uploadify.com/) the action isn't reach... moreover Session are not retrieved. I found this to retrieved user session : http://geekswithblogs.net/apopovsky/archive/2009/05/06/working-around-flash-cookie-bug-in-asp.net-mvc.aspx But how to use it with [Authorize] filter and retrieved session ?

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net Session_Start event not firing

    - by Jazza
    I have an ASP.Net 2.0 application in which the Session_Start event is not firing in my Global.asax file. Can anyone tell why this is happening and how I can get it working? The application worked fine on my Windows XP development machine, but stopped working when deployed to the server (Win Server 2003/IIS 6/ASP.Net 2.0). I'm not sure if this is relevant, but the server also hosts a SharePoint installation (WSS 3.0) which I know does change some settings at the default web site level.

    Read the article

  • Long-running ASP.NET tasks

    - by John Leidegren
    I know there's a bunch of APIs out there that do this, but I also know that the hosting environment (being ASP.NET) puts restrictions on what you can reliably do in a separate thread. I could be completely wrong, so please correct me if I am, this is however what I think I know. A request typically timeouts after 120 seconds (this is configurable) but eventually the ASP.NET runtime will kill a request that's taking too long to complete. The hosting environment, typically IIS, employs process recycling and can at any point decide to recycle your app. When this happens all threads are aborted and the app restarts. I'm however not sure how aggressive it is, it would be kind of stupid to assume that it would abort a normal ongoing HTTP request but I would expect it to abort a thread because it doesn't know anything about the unit of work of a thread. If you had to create a programming model that easily and reliably and theoretically put a long running task, that would have to run for days, how would you accomplish this from within an ASP.NET application? The following are my thoughts on the issue: I've been thinking a long the line of hosting a WCF service in a win32 service. And talk to the service through WCF. This is however not very practical, because the only reason I would choose to do so, is to send tasks (units of work) from several different web apps. I'd then eventually ask the service for status updates and act accordingly. My biggest concern with this is that it would NOT be a particular great experience if I had to deploy every task to the service for it to be able to execute some instructions. There's also this issue of input, how would I feed this service with data if I had a large data set and needed to chew through it? What I typically do right now is this SELECT TOP 10 * FROM WorkItem WITH (ROWLOCK, UPDLOCK, READPAST) WHERE WorkCompleted IS NULL It allows me to use a SQL Server database as a work queue and periodically poll the database with this query for work. If the work item completed with success, I mark it as done and proceed until there's nothing more to do. What I don't like is that I could theoretically be interrupted at any point and if I'm in-between success and marking it as done, I could end up processing the same work item twice. I might be a bit paranoid and this might be all fine but as I understand it there's no guarantee that that won't happen... I know there's been similar questions on SO before but non really answers with a definitive answer. This is a really common thing, yet the ASP.NET hosting environment is ill equipped to handle long-running work. Please share your thoughts.

    Read the article

  • InteropServices COMException when executing a .net app from a web CGI script on Windows Server 2003

    - by Kurt W. Leucht
    Disclaimer: I'm completely clueless about .net and COM. I have a vendor's application that appears to be written in .net and I'm trying to wrap it with a web form (a cgi-bin Perl script) so I can eventually launch this vendor's app from a separate computer. I'm on a Windows Server 2003 R2 SE SP1 system and I'm using Apache 2.2 for the web server and ActivePerl 5.10.0.1004 for the cgi script. My cgi script calls the vendor's app that resides on the same machine using the Perl backtick operator. ... $result = "Result: " . `$vendorsPath/$vendorsExecutable $arg1 $arg2`; ... Right now I'm just running IE web browser locally on the server machine and accessing "http://localhost/cgi-bin/myPerlScript.pl". The vendor's app fails and logs a debug message that includes the following stack trace (I changed a couple names so as to not give away the vendor's identity): ... System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. ---> System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException (0x80043A1D): 0x80040154 - Class not registered --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at System.RuntimeType.InvokeDispMethod(String name, BindingFlags invokeAttr, Object target, Object[] args, Boolean[] byrefModifiers, Int32 culture, String[] namedParameters) at System.RuntimeType.InvokeMember(String name, BindingFlags invokeAttr, Binder binder, Object target, Object[] args, ParameterModifier[] modifiers, CultureInfo culture, String[] namedParameters) at VendorsTool.Engine.Core.VendorsEngine.LoadVendorsServices(String fileName, String& projectCommPath) ... When I run the vendors app from the Windows command line on the server machine with the exact same arguments that the cgi script is passing it runs just fine, so there's something about invoking their app via the web script that is causing a problem. This problem is likely security related because the whole thing runs just fine on a Windows XP Pro machine (both command line and web invocation). I actually developed my web script there and got it completely working there before I tried moving it to the Windows Server 2003 machine. So what's different about the Windows Server 2003 machine that would keep the vendor's .net app from being executed successfully by a web cgi script? Can I fix this problem somehow to make it work on my server or will the vendor have to make a change to their .net app and ship out a new version? I'm probably the only person in the world who is trying to execute this vendor's app from a separate program, so I hate to bother the vendor with the issue if there's a workaround that I can implement myself here on my server machine. Plus, I'm in kind of a hurry and I don't want to wait 4 or 6 months for the vendor to put in a fix and deploy a new version. Thanks for any advise you can give.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206  | Next Page >