|
Probably you're writing the button in the wrong message handler (if it is a message handler).
As already suggested by Hamid, you should post some code to obtain help.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
kiranin wrote: but it is not sustaining when mouse moves on the button
That is not a surprise. The button redraws itself when it is hovered over, clicked on, not clicked on, when it's just plain spiteful...
You need to put the drawing code in the right place.
Search the articles on codeproject for owner draw buttons. (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/buttons/[^]) and replace their drawing code with your own PNG stuff.
You may even find a PNG drawing button already done.
Iain.
Codeproject MVP for C++, I can't believe it's for my lounge posts...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Where to best store a global object in an SDI app? In my case it's a "DatabaseManager" class for accessing an SQLite database.
First it was just a member variable of my CDocument but now I need the object in many places in my app.
So where to best store it?
* Global variable?
* Singleton object?
* Member variable of CWinApp?
* ...
One problem: I want to open the database when constructing the object, so the object may throw an "DatabaseException". For this reason a global variable as well as a singleton seem to be suboptimal to me.
Niki
|
|
|
|
|
The "member variable of CWinApp" makes the most sense to me.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
Ok
Is it a good way to store the "DatabaseManager" class as a pointer and do a new CDatabaseManager(filepath) inside my CMyApp::InitInstance() (and an appropriate delete in the destructor)?
And then everytime I need it, just
dynamic_cast<cmyapp*>(AfxGetApp())->GetMyDatabase()
?
Thank you,
Niki
|
|
|
|
|
...or is it better to write a
extern CMyApp theApp;
in every source file needed and use theApp.GetDabataseManager() ?
|
|
|
|
|
From a strict technical viewpoint, this solution is faster to execute, and cleaner, because there is no cast involved.
I would prefer this, personally.
|
|
|
|
|
nobaq wrote: First it was just a member variable of my CDocument but now I need the object in many places in my app.
That's what the GetDocument() method is for.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
|
|
|
|
|
I have learned c++/MFC for several years but no obvious improvement.
suddenly I transfered to c# and .net, I have strong feeling that c# can save you much much more time compared to MFC based programming.
I am wondering why MFC is still being used now? what is the advantage? is it efficiency or flexbility compared to c# based programming?
|
|
|
|
|
I think compare is not correct but for me c++ is best language to use to write COM components also you can see we dont need to write lot of code for use of windows API but on the C# you need to more work on the C# you cant use of multiinheritance(I like it myself) on the C# you dont have header file and....for example I read a programmer said that F# is better C#.
F# code:
#light
(*sample windows forms program*)
open System.Windows.Forms
let form=new Form(Visible=true,TopMost=true,Text="Welcome")
...
...
<joke>
BTW be careful you are on the c++ form and you want to compare c++?
Of one Essence is the human race
thus has Creation put the base
One Limb impacted is sufficient
For all Others to feel the Mace
(Saadi )
|
|
|
|
|
Seraph_summer wrote: I have strong feeling that c# can save you much much more time compared to MFC based programming.
Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
|
Diversity is a good thing
.net is good, but it is far from perfect. It might be easier to learn than MFC, but that doesn't mean that thousands of MFC programmers are going to switch to .net. They already *know* MFC, there is not much need for them to switch to anything else.
I've used both, and I still prefer C++/MFC than C#/.net for simple projects.
But C#/.net is my choice when I work with databases.
As I said it is about diversity, everyone pick what he/she likes.
|
|
|
|
|
Seraph_summer wrote: I have strong feeling that c# can save you much much more time compared to MFC based programming.
For some things, the .NET framework is very useful and, obviously, well integrated with C#. However - if you expand your horizons outside Microsoft, you can find a lot of useful, well written libraries for C++ - Boost[^], libxml2[^] and many others - I've done a few comparative implementations in both C# and C++ and have found the development time and size of the app to be comparable (and very dependent on using the right libraries) between the two languages, while the C++ implementations have been consistently faster.
Of course, the apps I'm writing aren't just GUI + database layer, so my results may have no resemblance to what might hold in your domain.
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on what you're doing...
If you're writing something that is low-level, or efficiency and response time is very important, you would write C++ (unmanaged...).
Just think of a 3D computer game written in .Net, it'll be so slow that people just won't use it (or the requirements would be sky-high!).
Same for massive web-severs and such...
I also use C#, but only or Win Forms and such... It does cut the development time, saving many hours!
So both are good - just depends for what...
|
|
|
|
|
I am writing a small article about file enumeration, and in one of my CppUnit test I *discovered* that FindFirstFile/FindNextFile won't correctly report file attributes on FAT32 and FAT16. Specifically, FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute is the problem here:
Here is what my code does:
SetFileAttributes(sTestFile.c_str(), FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY);
DWORD attr_1 = GetFileAttributes(sTestFile.c_str());
FindFirstFile(sTestFile.c_str(), &fd);
It took me nearly a day to realize that problem is due to File system and not my code. And now after spending hours going through on-line documentation I decided to ask here:
1. Is this documented behavior or a bug?
2. Am I doing something wrong in my code. Maybe it is something about temporary files that I failed to take into account.
Any help would be highly appreciated. I have tested this on two computers, both running XP, and I get same results on both.
Finally, here is a simple console project that demonstrates the problem:
#include "tchar.h"
#include "Windows.h"
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
basic_string<tchar> sPath = _T("");
basic_string<tchar> sTestFile = _T("\\test_file.txt");
TCHAR root[256] = {0};
DWORD size = 256;
WIN32_FIND_DATA fd;
if (::GetCurrentDirectory(size, root) != 0)
sPath = root;
else return 1;
sPath += sTestFile;
CreateFile(
sPath.c_str(),
GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE,
FILE_SHARE_READ,
NULL,
CREATE_ALWAYS,
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY,
NULL);
_tprintf(_T("\nA file %s is created...\n"), sPath.c_str());
_tprintf(_T("\nFile attributes (as reported by GetFileAttributes() ) are now: %x \n"), GetFileAttributes(sPath.c_str()));
_tprintf(_T("\nExplicitly set FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute...\n"));
SetFileAttributes(sPath.c_str(), FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY);
_tprintf(_T("\nFile attributes (as reported by GetFileAttributes() ) are now: %x \n"), GetFileAttributes(sTestFile.c_str()));
FindFirstFile(sTestFile.c_str(), &fd);
_tprintf(_T("\nAccessing file with FindFirstFile()...\n"));
_tprintf(_T("\nFile attributes (as reported by FindFirstFile() ) are now: %x\n"), fd.dwFileAttributes);
DeleteFile(sPath.c_str());
_tprintf(_T("\n\n// copied from winnt.h\n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY 0x00000001 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN 0x00000002 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM 0x00000004 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY 0x00000010 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ARCHIVE 0x00000020 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DEVICE 0x00000040 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL 0x00000080 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY 0x00000100 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SPARSE_FILE 0x00000200 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT 0x00000400 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_COMPRESSED 0x00000800 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_OFFLINE 0x00001000 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NOT_CONTENT_INDEXED 0x00002000 \n"));
_tprintf(_T("//#define FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ENCRYPTED 0x00004000 \n"));
return 0;
}
</tchar></tchar></iostream></string>
modified on Saturday, January 10, 2009 3:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
it has been a long time I used it, but here is what I remember:
1. CreateFile creates a file, opens it and returns a handle to it;
2. when you are done, you must call CloseHandle;
3. file data and metadata (such as last write time, and the flags) is only guaranteed to be committed
to disk when the file got closed.
Issue 3 is what allows different file systems to behave slightly differently.
Also I don't expect FindFile to keep track exactly of what is happening with open files.
Hence I suggest you set the files the way you want them, make sure they are all closed, and only then
observe in any way you see fit, including enumeration through FindFile.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your answer, I guess I was to hasty to post my question (and the fact that I went to bed at 4:30 AM last night certainly didn't help). I forgot to say that I removed all error checking and file handles because it did not affect my problem, and I wanted a simplest/shortest possible test.
The same thing happens even if file handle is closed (I even tried calling ::Sleep(5000) right after CloseHandle, just to be sure (I was also desperate ).
Basically, my Unit test goes through a loop of all possible file attributes, it creates a new file, sets one Attribute and checks if my enumeration class finds the file. If it does, test is successful, and loops goes to test another Attribute.
And all is fine until FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY is tested, and only if I start tests on my USB drive (which is FAT32 based), on my hard drive test works fine.
You had a very good idea, but unfortunately that is not it 
Best regards,
loreia
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
This page on CreateFile[^] holfd the following sentence:
"Specifying the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute causes file systems to avoid writing data back to mass storage if sufficient cache memory is available, because an application deletes a temporary file after a handle is closed. In that case, the system can entirely avoid writing the data. Although it doesn't directly control data caching in the same way as the previously mentioned flags, the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute does tell the system to hold as much as possible in the system cache without writing and therefore may be of concern for certain applications."
which seems to hint temporary files may be treated in a very lazy way; maybe you shouldn't really
worry too much if the only condition under which your tests fail is with the TEMP bit set.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks again 
I've read that sentence like 300 times in last few days, and I must admit that I don't fully understand it. OK, English is my second language (third in fact) and I may be missing something, but this is how I see it:
When application sets FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute this information *should* be written somewhere in file system, and GetFileAttributes and FindFirstFile *should* read the same thing from file system.
I don't understand why these two functions report different Attributes on FAT.
Now, I can implement my class in such a way that when searching for FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute, my class would additionally call GetFileAttributes within FindNextFile block.
But I find this workaround a bit clumsy, and I was hoping to avoid it.
Best regards
loreia
|
|
|
|
|
Well, one way one could interpret the sentence is: a temporary file is private, it belongs to the process and will not survive the process, so once you decide to make a file temporary, there is no need for further file operations as long as it keeps holding the data for the owning process (so the only thing
it may have to write to disk is data that exceeds the cache capacity). Once the file gets closed, it
should be deleted (not sure by whom: the OS or the app, probably the OS, maybe only when the app
exits, but then your tests have finished too).
(I know you can disagree on all that, the file system should always tell the truth, etc)
You currently create the file as a regular file (despite your comment in the source), and later set the
TEMP flag; so the file gets created on disk as a regular file, and once you turn it into a TEMP file,
it may or may not reflect that on disk.
This is a little experiment you could do: create file, write data, make temp, show current time,
wait 10 seconds, write more data, close file, now use Explorer to see modified datetime: did it
update after you turned it into temp? if not, it supports the "TEMP means no valid metadata" hypothesis.
And maybe, just maybe, if you create it the start as a TEMP file right away, it will show that
everywhere, and later on you could clear the TEMP flag and all would be good...
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, you last suggestion helped me better understand how TEMP files work.
When I run test program on my hard drive, "test_file.txt" is not created at all, Explorer simply doesn't show it. I can see file only when I run program on my USB drive. After realizing that, I re-read this sentence from MSDN:
"Specifying the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY attribute causes file systems to avoid writing data back to mass storage if sufficient cache memory is available, because an application deletes a temporary file after a handle is closed. In that case, the system can entirely avoid writing the data."
So, TEMP file is held in memory as long enough cache memory is available. And after seeing that file is NOT deleted on my USB stick, I can verify that application is the one responsible for deleting file (unless FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE is set in CreateFile)
Now, at least I fully understand what MSDN documentation says about FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY .
Off course, my problem still remains. GetFileAttributes and FindFirstFile *should* see the same set of file attributes, and should report the same DWORD value.
And BTW, you really have a "hawk eye", I meant to call CreateFile with FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY parameter but I made a mistake when copied source code here (in original that parameter is "*iter").
But it doesn't change much, no matter how I create file, once I set TEMP attribute, FindFirstFile chokes on it(on FAT32).
|
|
|
|
|
To complicate matters, I think removable devices such as USB sticks, work or may work slightly differently from regular disks; you (sometimes?) can set a device attribute that makes it safe
to remove them at all times, which tells me they can only cache on read, not on write; if you don't,
they may operate faster (on writes that is) but you officially need to "safely remove hardware"
telling Windows it should flush the cache to the device.
I don't always find how to control this feature though, it should be on one of the Device Property tabs but sometimes seems missing; I use both XP and Vista, and it may depend on the specific USB stick (some tend to install and use their own driver).
As a last remark: USB sticks really contain a microcontroller and a flash EEPROM, so there is software
involved there too; they get to execute FAT commands, so your TEMP problem could even be stick-specific!
If you ever discover the finer details on the TEMP matter, feel free to write and publish an article
on the subject!
|
|
|
|
|
This post brought smile to my face, I too am an electronics engineer and I program microcontrollers in my spare time (Microchip's PIC family) and my next project (if I ever find time to do it, that is) is to implement procedure to save data (collected from various sensors) on USB stick.
Back to topic...
I think Windows simply flushes data on USB stick because they are removable, and that is the only reason I can see the file with TEMP attribute. So it is probably not specific to my UBS stick.
But I was thinking along the same lines, so I tested on three different USB stick and two computers, and then I created a small FAT32 (and FAT) partition on my hard drive and tested it there too.
I got the same results everywhere, FindFirstFile identifies TEMP file only on NTFS partitions
|
|
|
|
|
loreia wrote: FindFirstFile identifies TEMP file only on NTFS partitions
FindFirstFile is returning the FAT attributes from reading the disk because it was designed to also work with 16-bit programs. FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY is an attribute which does not exist in the FAT specification[^] but does in NTFS. Would you expect to see FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ENCRYPTED on a FAT partition? No because only NTFS supports encryption. GetFileAttributes is different and checks internel objects such as the cache manager. There are *many* attributes in the GetFileAttributes Function[^] which are not present on a FAT based disk.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
David, thank you a lot for your answer.
I know from experience that FAT32 doesn't support encryption, so answer to your question is: no. LOL
So, TEMP attribute is NTFS specific, and it is not supported on FAT32. Thanks for clarifying that, but what I don't understand is why SetFileAttributes returns TRUE when setting TEMP attribute to a file on FAT32.
It SetFileAttributes function returned FALSE I wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
My understanding is: if FAT32 doesn't support TEMP files, than SetFileAttributes should fail to set TEMP attribute.
I was wrong in presuming that "error" (for the lack of better description) was in FindFirstFile. But in fact FindFirstFile correctly reports that TEMP attribute is not set on FAT32 (as it cannot be set on FAT32).
And the real problem is in SetFileAttributes/GetFileAttributes functions that *claim* that file has a TEMP attribute set even on FAT32 (and this is in direct contradiction to FAT32 File System Specification that you posted a link for).
I you know why are SetFileAttributes/GetFileAttributes acting in this way, your explanation would help me a lot.
Best regards
loreia
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
