Visual Basic, VB.net + third-party ActiveX components

VB.net + third-party ActiveX components

Author	Message
Phuong That To #1 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Hi everyone, I try to convert VB6 to vb.net and found that all third-party ActiveX components are gone. I try to use add reference to third-party ActiveX components, but it display to Solution\Project\references not a control that I expected. I am confused, am I doing wrong. Anybody knows how to use third-party ActiveX components in vb.net please help me out. or give me a hint to find out the best solution. VB programmer Phuong That Ton
Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:04:50 GMT

Joe #2 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > Hi everyone, > I try to convert VB6 to vb.net and found that all third-party ActiveX > components > are gone. > I try to use add reference to third-party ActiveX components, but it > display to Solution\Project\references > not a control that I expected. > I am confused, am I doing wrong. > Anybody knows how to use third-party ActiveX components in vb.net please > help me out. > or give me a hint to find out the best solution. VB.NOT can use ActiveX components only through "COM Interop", which has some "interesting" side effects. In short, ActiveX controls are simply NOT where Microshaft wants you to go today. You're probably just boned. -- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:11:52 GMT

Tom Shelto #3 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > > Hi everyone, > > I try to convert VB6 to vb.net and found that all third-party ActiveX > > components > > are gone. > > I try to use add reference to third-party ActiveX components, but it > > display to Solution\Project\references > > not a control that I expected. > > I am confused, am I doing wrong. > > Anybody knows how to use third-party ActiveX components in vb.net please > > help me out. > > or give me a hint to find out the best solution. > VB.NOT can use ActiveX components only through "COM Interop", which has > some "interesting" side effects. In short, ActiveX controls are simply > NOT where Microshaft wants you to go today. You're probably just boned. FUD. Simply right click on your toolbox, and add the component from the COM components tab (if it is an OCX). If it is a COM dll, got project-references and select your dll from the COM tab. The IDE will automatically generate a .NET wrapper. I am using several of my VB6 dlls from a .NET app, and they work fine. There has been no "interesting" side effects. I'm not saying that there can't be, but I haven't experienced any. Tom Shelton
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:26:15 GMT

Joe #4 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > > VB.NOT can use ActiveX components only through "COM Interop", which has > > some "interesting" side effects. In short, ActiveX controls are simply > > NOT where Microshaft wants you to go today. You're probably just boned. > FUD. Simply right click on your toolbox, and add the component from the COM > components tab (if it is an OCX). If it is a COM dll, got > project-references and select your dll from the COM tab. The IDE will > automatically generate a .NET wrapper. I am using several of my VB6 dlls > from a .NET app, and they work fine. There has been no "interesting" side > effects. I'm not saying that there can't be, but I haven't experienced any. Spin-doctoring. Do you deny the existence of ActiveX components which manage shared resources, such as files, database transactions, or even hardware? -- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 03:27:31 GMT

Tom Shelto #5 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > Spin-doctoring. Do you deny the existence of ActiveX components which > manage shared resources, such as files, database transactions, or even > hardware? No, because at least one my DLL's uses socket resources to talk to our home grown SQL server running on SCO Unix - good thing that I have a CloseDatabase method, and, yes I remembered to call Dispose. Joe, is DF your only real beef with .NET? Tom Shelton
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 05:41:09 GMT

Joe #6 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > > Spin-doctoring. Do you deny the existence of ActiveX components which > > manage shared resources, such as files, database transactions, or even > > hardware? > No, because at least one my DLL's uses socket resources to talk to our home > grown SQL server running on SCO Unix - good thing that I have a > CloseDatabase method, and, yes I remembered to call Dispose. Joe, is DF > your only real beef with .NET? It's just the one I think will wind up causing the most Heisenbugs in either new or migrated code and thus wasting the most programmer-hours. -- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 06:07:10 GMT

Phuong That To #7 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Thank you Tom,It works fine. Sorry about bothering you, But I still have more questions on MS controls. Have you recognized AxMSCommLib.AxMSComm,AxKeyStatLib.AxMhState. They are MS controls in vb6, but not including in vb.net toolbox. AxThreed.AxSSPanel from threed32.ocx convert to vb.net will be disapeared. Why I reference to system,controls and still use imports statement. In Delphi I reference to "uses anylibrary", and Java I use "import anylibrary" I can use winapi32 functions (or class relevent) but not in vb.net. If you know about them please let me know. (I need to considerate carefull before deciding convert my vb6 project to vb.net) Anyway many thanks Phuong Quote: -----Original Message----- Posted At: 14 February 2002 18:26 Posted To: misc Conversation: VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Subject: Re: VB.net + third-party ActiveX components > > Hi everyone, > > I try to convert VB6 to vb.net and found that all third-party ActiveX > > components > > are gone. > > I try to use add reference to third-party ActiveX components, but it > > display to Solution\Project\references > > not a control that I expected. > > I am confused, am I doing wrong. > > Anybody knows how to use third-party ActiveX components in vb.net please > > help me out. > > or give me a hint to find out the best solution. > VB.NOT can use ActiveX components only through "COM Interop", which has > some "interesting" side effects. In short, ActiveX controls are simply > NOT where Microshaft wants you to go today. You're probably just boned. FUD. Simply right click on your toolbox, and add the component from the COM components tab (if it is an OCX). If it is a COM dll, got project-references and select your dll from the COM tab. The IDE will automatically generate a .NET wrapper. I am using several of my VB6 dlls from a .NET app, and they work fine. There has been no "interesting" side effects. I'm not saying that there can't be, but I haven't experienced any. Tom Shelton
Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:30:19 GMT

Joe #8 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > (I need to considerate carefull before deciding convert my vb6 project > to vb.net) Also consider the fact that Microsoft has announced intentions to mutate B# even further, so if you "convert" your code now, most likely you'll just have to rewrite it yet again RSN. -- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> DC8s in Spaace: <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Thu, 05 Aug 2004 07:16:59 GMT

Larry Lins #9 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components > Microsoft has announced intentions to > mutate B# even further, so if you . . . "B#" is not a .NET language -- you probably intended to type "B-Flat". Maybe you need to update your spelling checker's word list.
Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:53:33 GMT

Joe #10 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > > Microsoft has announced intentions to > > mutate B# even further, so if you . . . > "B#" is not a .NET language -- you probably intended to type "B-Flat". > Maybe you need to update your spelling checker's word list. I thought it was pronounced "B-Hash", as in what whoever developed that laughable attempt at a dumbed-down Java clone must have been smoking... Yes, I'm so happy they fixed While/End While to be more consistent with the other looping constructs, such as For/End For and Do/End Do, right? -- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Sat, 07 Aug 2004 11:34:22 GMT

Tom Shelto #11 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > > > Spin-doctoring. Do you deny the existence of ActiveX components which > > > manage shared resources, such as files, database transactions, or even > > > hardware? > > No, because at least one my DLL's uses socket resources to talk to our home > > grown SQL server running on SCO Unix - good thing that I have a > > CloseDatabase method, and, yes I remembered to call Dispose. Joe, is DF > > your only real beef with .NET? > It's just the one I think will wind up causing the most Heisenbugs in > either new or migrated code and thus wasting the most programmer-hours. Well, I can almost agree with you on the issue of DF - almost. This was something that really bothered me at first, but now that I'm working in it - I'm finding it isn't as big an issue as I thought it would be. There are benefits to the lack of reference counting, both in performance and overhead. One is just creating or destroying objects. In COM, hence VB, there is a fairly significant penalty involved in object creation and destruction due to reference counting. This of course would not be noticeable when you were only dealing a few objects, but in cases with large numbers of objects the hit could become noticeable. The fact is that the vast majority of objects just don't need reference counting or DF. It would have been nice if they had found a way to somehow implement both, a sort of hybrid system, but they didn't so we are stuck making the best of it. It really isn't that bad. Besides, at least now I don't have to wory so much about cycles. I have heard that they are still trying to come up with a solution of some kind, but I'm fairly certain that DF is gone for good. Tom Shelton
Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:18:28 GMT

Joe #12 / 12	VB.net + third-party ActiveX components Quote: > > It's just the one I think will wind up causing the most Heisenbugs in > > either new or migrated code and thus wasting the most programmer-hours. > Well, I can almost agree with you on the issue of DF - almost. This was > something that really bothered me at first, but now that I'm working in it - > I'm finding it isn't as big an issue as I thought it would be. There are > benefits to the lack of reference counting, both in performance and > overhead. One is just creating or destroying objects. In COM, hence VB, > there is a fairly significant penalty involved in object creation and > destruction due to reference counting. This of course would not be > noticeable when you were only dealing a few objects, but in cases with large > numbers of objects the hit could become noticeable. The fact is that the > vast majority of objects just don't need reference counting or DF. It would > have been nice if they had found a way to somehow implement both, a sort of > hybrid system, but they didn't so we are stuck making the best of it. It ...but I did find a way. I can now release an array of thousands of unique object references much faster than I can an array of strings! You haven't forgotten "NDF's last gasp" already, have you? URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2cjn68927u2a8%40corp.supernews.com URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2hdou4sgicgcf%40corp.supernews.com Quote: > really isn't that bad. Besides, at least now I don't have to wory so much > about cycles. Just give Victor the Cleaner a call: URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e8jaBEfqBHA.1928%40tkmsftngp07 The idea is like that of a Recordset: a Recordset's fields can have interdependencies up the wazoo, but when a Recordset closes, it will take all its dependent objects down with it. Cycles are irrelevant! Quote: > I have heard that they are still trying to come up with a > solution of some kind, but I'm fairly certain that DF is gone for good. So now the C++ bigots will have one more thing to feel smug about: URL:http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#finally Oops, make that "two more things": URL:http://www.kbcafe.com/articles/refcountptr.html -- Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Sign the Check! <http://www.xenu.net/> WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:38:57 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 12 post ]