|
raddevus wrote: Things should just work right! 
You can't edit a document that is open, you can't replace an exe that is in use.
That is the right way.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point.
In a virtual world everything should work.
It could run a Shadow copy, right?
Then it could replace the one on disk.
Then it could load the new one and point to the new memory where the new one runs.
Software is all virtual -- no physical limitations -- so it _should_ work. 
Let's think outside the box.
I know there are other issues. Just that software doesn't feel real anyways.
Then these limitations often feel false.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: It could run a Shadow copy, right?
Then it could replace the one on disk.
Making things worse. We'll have a dll-hell in running apps.
raddevus wrote: Let's think outside the box.
That's not it.
raddevus wrote: Then these limitations often feel false.
It is not a limitation per se, it is merely practical.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would anyone go to those lengths to service an uninstall of their software. Besides if you (well me anyway) tried to code something like that the software would probably end up crawling up its own arse.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: you can't replace an exe that is in use.
It may not be 'right' but that's how our apps update...rename the running exe and replace it. The only time it doesn't work is when another user also has it open.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
So now I come to my desk, do not know which version is running compared to the one on disc, may have multiple conflicting libaries loaded.. Sounds great
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
More to the point, you can't kill a .DLL (shell extension) that has been loaded into a process (Explorer.exe), until the process lets go of its references to the .DLL.
The only time that happens is when the process goes dies or, under .NET, you kill the AppDomain that holds the reference.
Since Explorer.exe isn't a .NET process... well, your only choice is to kill the process or reboot the machine and let "pending file op's" take care of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry I harshed your rant! 
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I'm sorry I harshed your rant!
Cracked me up!
But...never let it happen again! 
|
|
|
|
|
Many a time I've wanted to kill Windows Explorer!
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Many a time I've wanted to kill Windows Explorer!
Well, then, Notepad++ is your dream come true.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got it, use it all the time.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Who is responsible?
That's easy, the OS, ergo MS...
That's the way shell extensions work, they are loaded into the explorer Process and therefore are "locked" until the owner process has finished with them.
Don't kill the messenger (Notepad++),
though your idea about shadow copy, copy file, load file, remap memory etc. etc... supported by official API's from the OS to replace shell extensions on the fly... every hackers wet dream if that came out of the box...
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
|
Phil.Benson wrote: every hackers wet dream if that came out of the box...
It is painful that the hackers make computing so bad. 
|
|
|
|
|
? -> Update Notepad++
Updates the application without uninstalling it. In all the years I've been using it, it's never needed to kill Windows Explorer.
If you're uninstalling it, then it has to uninstall the shell extension, so it has to restart the shell.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's good to know. The additional challenge for my installation is that I don't have admin rights to my machine so I cannot do install / uninstall. This was actually a special installation process that is initiated under a special admin user. Yeah, it sucks.
I ended up downloading the zip version, dropping it into my own folder and running it from there.
No more need for the official version (which is a few revs back anyways).
|
|
|
|
|
|
My god, it's full of stars!
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
not of this world!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are three short gang members a criplet?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
If Shakespeare would have written 'The three little pigs', would he have called them hamlets?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
only way to be sure is tri it out
This internet thing is amazing! Letting people use it: worst idea ever!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
