Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'kerido'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Handler invocation speed: Objective-C vs virtual functions

  - by Kerido

  I heard that calling a handler (delegate, etc.) in Objective-C can be even faster than calling a virtual function in C++. Is it really correct? If so, how can that be? AFAIK, virtual functions are not that slow to call. At least, this is my understanding of what happens when a virtual function is called: Compute the index of the function pointer location in vtbl. Obtain the pointer to vtbl. Dereference the pointer and obtain the beginning of the array of function pointers. Offset (in pointer scale) the beginning of the array with the index value obtained on step 1. Issue a call instruction. Unfortunately, I don't know Objective-C so it's hard for me to compare performance. But at least, the mechanism of a virtual function call doesn't look that slow, right? How can something other than static function call be faster?

  Read the article

• Programmatically allow write access for a Registry key

  - by Kerido

  Hi everybody, I need to programmatically modify the Access Descriptors on a known Registry key during product installation. The way I want it to work is: The installer is run in Administrative mode. A Registry key is created. A function (the one I need) queries the ACL from the key. If this function finds that the group 'Users' already has write access, nothing should be done. If not, it should add a new permission allowing write access to the 'Users' group. The permissions are saved for the Registry key. This question is similar to Setting Registry key write permissions using .NET, however, I need a C++/Win32 implementation. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Which plugin framework to use for native C++/Win32

  - by Kerido

  Hi everybody. I have an extensible product that allows 3rd party developers to extend it. The aspects that can be extended are documented and interfaces are provided in the SDK. Currently, I'm using COM and I'm getting pretty comfortable with it. I especially like the ability to provide interface versioning in a unified manner. I consider it to be a requirement because you never know what you're gonna need in the future. Just to be precise, here's an example. Let's suppose I have an interface representing a particular feature: class IFeature { public: virtual void DoFeatureTask() = 0; }; Then after the interface is already documented (and someone may have used it in the plugin code) I'm realizing, I need more from this feature. Maybe, there is an option I need to provide. I just define the second version: class IFeature2 { public: virtual void DoFeatureTask(int theOption) = 0; }; I don't mean I intend to have lots of versions. But it just may happen. In COM, because every interface is associated with a GUID, I can query a preferred implementation, determine its presence, and, finally, fall back to a legacy one. But after glancing through C++/COM-related questions, I noticed many recommendations against COM. So maybe it's not the best choice and I'm just too old-school. Can you advise on an alternative?

  Read the article

• Completely remove ViewState for specific pages

  - by Kerido

  Hi everybody, I have a site that features some pages which do not require any post-back functionality. They simply display static HTML and don't even have any associated code. However, since the Master Page has a <form runat="server"> tag which wraps all ContentPlaceHolders, the resulting HTML always contains the ViewState field, i.e: <input type="hidden" id="__VIEWSTATE" value="/wEPDwUKMjEwNDQyMTMxM2Rk0XhpfvawD3g+fsmZqmeRoPnb9kI=" /> I realize, that when decrypted, this string corresponds to the <form> tag which I cannot remove. However, I would still like to remove the ViewState field for pages that only display static HTML. Is it possible?

  Read the article

• Where should global Application Settings be stored on Windows 7?

  - by Kerido

  Hi everybody, I'm working hard on making my product work seamlessly on Windows 7. The problem is that there is a small set of global (not user-specific) application settings that all users should be able to change. On previous versions I used HKLM\Software\__Company__\__Product__ for that purpose. This allowed Power Users and Administrators to modify the Registry Key and everything worked correctly. Now that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have this UAC feature, by default, even an Administrator cannot access the Key for writing without elevation. A stupid solution would, of course, mean adding requireAdministrator option into the application manifest. But this is really unprofessional since the product itself is extremely far from administration-related tasks. So I need to stay with asInvoker. Another solution could mean programmatic elevation during moments when write access to the Registry Key is required. Let alone the fact that I don't know how to implement that, it's pretty awkward also. It interferes with normal user experience so much that I would hardly consider it an option. What I know should be relatively easy to accomplish is adding write access to the specified Registry Key during installation. I created a separate question for that. This also very similar to accessing a shared file for storing the settings. My feeling is that there must be a way to accomplish what I need, in a way that is secure, straightforward and compatible with all OS'es. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Windows development: x86 to x64 transition

  - by Kerido

  Hi everybody. Are there any guidelines how to transit to x64 with as little pain as possible? Suppose, I have a windows native x86 executable written in C++. The EXE works fine by itself, but there is also DLL that is hosted by both, the former EXE and an outside x64 process. With setup like this, what parts would I need to rewrite? I would appreciate a more general answer or maybe a link to a reference where some theoretical background is given. Thanks

  Read the article

1