To use the Textstream object, I had to set a Reference to the Microsoft
Scripting Runtime.
This works good with A2000
Is the Scripting Runtime included with A2002 and A2003 so the Reference
won't be broken when my app is opened with those versions.
Also is the Scripting Runtime included as part of the A2000 Runtime Engine
which some of my customers use.
17  4204 
There's actually no connection that I'm aware of between the Scripting
Runtime and Access: I believe the Scripting Runtime comes with the operating
system, not Office.
If you're concerned about references, try using Late Binding, so that you
don't need to set a reference.
--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)
"Karl Irvin" <88********@com cast.net> wrote in message
news:RM******** ************@co mcast.com... To use the Textstream object, I had to set a Reference to the Microsoft
Scripting Runtime.
This works good with A2000
Is the Scripting Runtime included with A2002 and A2003 so the Reference
won't be broken when my app is opened with those versions.
Also is the Scripting Runtime included as part of the A2000 Runtime Engine
which some of my customers use.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:45:12 -0500, "Karl Irvin"
<88********@com cast.net> wrote:
It's part of the OS and pretty much guaranteed to be there. You should
have no problems.
-Tom. To use the Textstream object, I had to set a Reference to the Microsoft
Scripting Runtime.
This works good with A2000
Is the Scripting Runtime included with A2002 and A2003 so the Reference
won't be broken when my app is opened with those versions.
Also is the Scripting Runtime included as part of the A2000 Runtime Engine
which some of my customers use.
Tom van Stiphout <no************ *@cox.net> wrote in
news:4b******** *************** *********@4ax.c om: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:45:12 -0500, "Karl Irvin"
<88********@co mcast.net> wrote:To use the Textstream object, I had to set a Reference to the
Microsoft Scripting Runtime.
This works good with A2000
Is the Scripting Runtime included with A2002 and A2003 so the
Reference won't be broken when my app is opened with those
versions.
Also is the Scripting Runtime included as part of the A2000
Runtime Engine which some of my customers use.
It's part of the OS and pretty much guaranteed to be there. You
should have no problems.
But it's one that is very often disabled through domain policies by
security-conscious system administrators.
I wouldn't count on it being installed or usable.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
>I wouldn't count on it being installed or usable.
In which case you should ask those same administrators to tell you up
front which other *integral parts* of the OS they have disabled. It
will make your life as a developer a lot easier.
Gord
"Gord" <gd*@kingston.n et> wrote in
news:11******** **************@ g49g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com: I wouldn't count on it being installed or usable.
In which case you should ask those same administrators to tell you
up front which other *integral parts* of the OS they have
disabled. It will make your life as a developer a lot easier.
The WSH is *not* an "integral part" of the oS. It's an insecure,
badly designed add-on to the OS that opens up massive security
vulnerabilities .
Yes, it's extraordinarily capable, but it's simply not designed to
be secure, so I don't think it's something anyone should count on
using, unless they are assured that it is available. And, of course,
when one is assured of that, one knows the network involved is not
terribly well administered from a security standpoint.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:01:10 -0500, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote: "Gord" <gd*@kingston.n et> wrote in
news:11******* *************** @g49g2000cwa.go oglegroups.com:
I wouldn't count on it being installed or usable.
In which case you should ask those same administrators to tell you
up front which other *integral parts* of the OS they have
disabled. It will make your life as a developer a lot easier.
The WSH is *not* an "integral part" of the oS. It's an insecure,
badly designed add-on to the OS that opens up massive security
vulnerabilitie s.
Yes, it's extraordinarily capable, but it's simply not designed to
be secure, so I don't think it's something anyone should count on
using, unless they are assured that it is available. And, of course,
when one is assured of that, one knows the network involved is not
terribly well administered from a security standpoint.
I know what you're saying used to be true, and perhaps it still is, but I'm
not at all certain of that.
1. I have an impression (though I don't know it for a fact) that large enough
fraction of commercial software is now written with the assumption that the
WSH libraries are available that WSH might now have to be considered integral
to the OS. If it's a piece that many popular applications won't function
without, that makes it integral.
2. Microsoft might have done better to engineer security in up front rather
than breaking everything later to achieve it, they have locked a lot of things
down much better how. I believe that WSH was one of the highest profile holes
that really did get boarded up. No program can make calls to very much of the
WSH now unless security is set to low or the user has chosen to allow a
specific application to use "unsafe expressions". The gaping security holes
that still do exist (like the ones a gazzillion spyware apps use) don't seem
to depend on WSH.
3. Many core microsoft libraries seem to now make the assumption that WSH is
also available. For instance, show me a way to stream MSXML SAX output to a
file on disk without FSO. You can do it to a stream in memory (which kinda
defeats the purpose) using an ADO stream, or you can stream to http in ASP,
but neither of those will get you a stream directly to a local file.
4. Dictionaries are mindbogglingly useful, but VB doesn't have one, and if you
roll your own, you have to debug it yourself, and you make your app harder to
maintain. WSH has a good dictionary object.
I'm not saying I'm sure you're wrong, but I think the above are some good
reasons to consider the answer less than black or white.
Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam. nospam> wrote in
news:0i******** *************** *********@4ax.c om: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:01:10 -0500, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bw ay.net.invalid> wrote:
"Gord" <gd*@kingston.n et> wrote in
news:11****** *************** *@g49g2000cwa.g ooglegroups.com :
I wouldn't count on it being installed or usable.
In which case you should ask those same administrators to tell
you up front which other *integral parts* of the OS they have
disabled. It will make your life as a developer a lot easier.
The WSH is *not* an "integral part" of the oS. It's an insecure,
badly designed add-on to the OS that opens up massive security
vulnerabiliti es.
Yes, it's extraordinarily capable, but it's simply not designed to
be secure, so I don't think it's something anyone should count on
using, unless they are assured that it is available. And, of
course, when one is assured of that, one knows the network
involved is not terribly well administered from a security
standpoint.
I know what you're saying used to be true, and perhaps it still
is, but I'm not at all certain of that.
1. I have an impression (though I don't know it for a fact) that
large enough fraction of commercial software is now written with
the assumption that the WSH libraries are available that WSH might
now have to be considered integral to the OS. If it's a piece
that many popular applications won't function without, that makes
it integral.
Well, this seems to me to be the lemming argument. That lots of
software companies are jumping off the cliff doesn't mean I should
jump off the cliff. This point is only relevant to the question of
whether you can count on it to be available for use, and is an
indirect argument (sort of like looking out the window, seeing
people carrying umbrellas and assuming it's therefore raining; if
everybody's carrying one, your conclusion is pretty firm; if only a
few people are, it's not so dependable).
One should choose the components incorporated into your Access
application based on merit and ease of maintenance. For
functionality that can be implemented without WSH components (such
as file system access), it seems to me obvious that you should
construct your Access app without any outside dependencies.
For things that Access can't do by itself, it's a harder question.
But I strongly doubt that there's any common area of functionality
that one would want to include in an Access app for which there is
not some alternative to using the WSH.
2. Microsoft might have done better to engineer
security in up front rather than breaking everything later to
achieve it, they have locked a lot of things down much better how.
I believe that WSH was one of the highest profile holes that
really did get boarded up. No program can make calls to very much
of the WSH now unless security is set to low or the user has
chosen to allow a specific application to use "unsafe
expressions". The gaping security holes that still do exist (like
the ones a gazzillion spyware apps use) don't seem to depend on
WSH.
Well, setting security to low opens up gaping security holes.
The WSH should be re-engineered to be able to run safely in
high-security environments. If it's not, it's worthless, as using it
requires you to make your system vulnerable.
That's unacceptable to me, and should be unacceptable to other
Access programmers.
3. Many core microsoft libraries seem to now make the
assumption that WSH is also available. For instance, show me a
way to stream MSXML SAX output to a file on disk without FSO. You
can do it to a stream in memory (which kinda defeats the purpose)
using an ADO stream, or you can stream to http in ASP, but neither
of those will get you a stream directly to a local file.
Many MS products assume that IE is your default brwoser, or force
you to use it. That this is so does not make it a good idea. Indeed,
it's extremely bad design on MS's part, and to me, screams of
anti-competitive business practices.
4.
Dictionaries are mindbogglingly useful, but VB doesn't have one,
and if you roll your own, you have to debug it yourself, and you
make your app harder to maintain. WSH has a good dictionary
object.
Dictionaries? What are you talking about? And why would I need one?
I'm not saying I'm sure you're wrong, but I think the above are
some good reasons to consider the answer less than black or white.
It's an unsafe, insecure pile of garbage. It was badly designed and
implemented from the beginning and MS should be ashamed of
themselves for putting out such a poorly thought-out scripting
engine.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton wrote: Dictionaries? What are you talking about? And why would I need one?
A Dictionary is a Collection object on steroids.
You don't need one.
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 14:41:17 -0500, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bwa y.net.invalid> wrote: Steve Jorgensen <no****@nospam. nospam> wrote in
news:0i******* *************** **********@4ax. com:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:01:10 -0500, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@b way.net.invalid > wrote:
"Gord" <gd*@kingston.n et> wrote in
news:11***** *************** **@g49g2000cwa. googlegroups.co m:
>I wouldn't count on it being installed or usable.
In which case you should ask those same administrators to tell
you up front which other *integral parts* of the OS they have
disabled. It will make your life as a developer a lot easier.
The WSH is *not* an "integral part" of the oS. It's an insecure,
badly designed add-on to the OS that opens up massive security
vulnerabilit ies.
Yes, it's extraordinarily capable, but it's simply not designed to
be secure, so I don't think it's something anyone should count on
using, unless they are assured that it is available. And, of
course, when one is assured of that, one knows the network
involved is not terribly well administered from a security
standpoint .
I know what you're saying used to be true, and perhaps it still
is, but I'm not at all certain of that.
1. I have an impression (though I don't know it for a fact) that
large enough fraction of commercial software is now written with
the assumption that the WSH libraries are available that WSH might
now have to be considered integral to the OS. If it's a piece
that many popular applications won't function without, that makes
it integral.
Well, this seems to me to be the lemming argument. That lots of
software companies are jumping off the cliff doesn't mean I should
jump off the cliff. This point is only relevant to the question of
whether you can count on it to be available for use, and is an
indirect argument (sort of like looking out the window, seeing
people carrying umbrellas and assuming it's therefore raining; if
everybody's carrying one, your conclusion is pretty firm; if only a
few people are, it's not so dependable).
One should choose the components incorporated into your Access
application based on merit and ease of maintenance. For
functionalit y that can be implemented without WSH components (such
as file system access), it seems to me obvious that you should
construct your Access app without any outside dependencies.
Yeah, and I keep finding myself making my own wrappers around the VB file
statements or around API calls to correctly deal with file attributes, etc.
Also, since Dir has a global context, you have to make sure you don't do
nested Dir calls to try to navigate a directory tree.
For things that Access can't do by itself, it's a harder question.
But I strongly doubt that there's any common area of functionality
that one would want to include in an Access app for which there is
not some alternative to using the WSH.
Streaming to files, and dictionaries are 2 that come to mind. Not every app
needs these, but many do. The question for those is use the WSH, or roll your
own. In the case of streams, I don't know how to work around it shor of
writing custom C++ code.
2. Microsoft might have done better to engineer
security in up front rather than breaking everything later to
achieve it, they have locked a lot of things down much better how.
I believe that WSH was one of the highest profile holes that
really did get boarded up. No program can make calls to very much
of the WSH now unless security is set to low or the user has
chosen to allow a specific application to use "unsafe
expressions". The gaping security holes that still do exist (like
the ones a gazzillion spyware apps use) don't seem to depend on
WSH.
Well, setting security to low opens up gaping security holes.
Exactly - so if WSH is now only vulnerable if you do that, who cares, because
the system is wide open anyway.
The WSH should be re-engineered to be able to run safely in
high-security environments. If it's not, it's worthless, as using it
requires you to make your system vulnerable.
Isn't that what they did by blocking "unsafe" expressions? Nothing can now
use the WSH to get to the file system, even for read-only unless the user
grants permission to execute unsafe expressions. Whether it's now safe or
not, I get the impression you'd never believe that it was so long as it is
called WSH (and I won't say for sure that you're wrong in that).
.... 3. Many core microsoft libraries seem to now make the
assumption that WSH is also available. For instance, show me a
way to stream MSXML SAX output to a file on disk without FSO. You
can do it to a stream in memory (which kinda defeats the purpose)
using an ADO stream, or you can stream to http in ASP, but neither
of those will get you a stream directly to a local file.
Many MS products assume that IE is your default brwoser, or force
you to use it. That this is so does not make it a good idea. Indeed,
it's extremely bad design on MS's part, and to me, screams of
anti-competitive business practices.
I don't see the WSH as being in that category. WSH is a library, just like
DAO is a library, that keeps everyone form having to choose to reinvent the
functionality within it or go without. 4.
Dictionaries are mindbogglingly useful, but VB doesn't have one,
and if you roll your own, you have to debug it yourself, and you
make your app harder to maintain. WSH has a good dictionary
object.
Dictionaries ? What are you talking about? And why would I need one?
I keep finding that my code is easier to maintain the more I use constructs
like collections and dictionaries, and move away from nested logic. A
dictionary is, in memory, much like the environment is in batch files. It's a
collection of values with names, in which new elements are transparently
created when assigned if they don't already exist, and a default value is
returnd for a non-existent element. You can also retrieve a list of the names
in a dictionary, unlike the names list in VBA collections which is write-only
for some really dumb reason. I'm not saying I'm sure you're wrong, but I think the above are
some good reasons to consider the answer less than black or white.
It's an unsafe, insecure pile of garbage. It was badly designed and
implemented from the beginning and MS should be ashamed of
themselves for putting out such a poorly thought-out scripting
engine.
If you're talking about the fact that it's callable from Web page scripts -
yeah, I'm right with you. As a library of really useful coding tools, I don't
see that it has any problems. I know your issue is that whether it is useful
or not, it is unsafe to have it around. I'm not sure that's still true, and
I'm not sure it's not, but It seems like you're still in knee-jerk mode and
have not considered that things may be different than when you formed your
initial opinion. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: MatthewRoberts |
last post by:
Howdy All,
I am having difficulty with two-way communication across AppDomains in
an attempt to dynamically script applications. Everything works as
expected, except when using ByRef parameters.
The below explanation is lengthy, but well worth the read. If you can
help me, I'd gladly share this code which has greatly helped my
development of extensible applications.
|
by: fiona |
last post by:
Catalyst Releases Scripting Editions of SocketTools
Client and server-side development for Active Server Pages and PHP.
Yucca Valley, CA, May 25, 2005 - Catalyst Development Corp
(www.catalyst.com) - with over 10 years experience developing Internet
components announced that Scripting and Secure Scripting Editions have
been added to the SocketTools family of products. The Scripting
Editions were designed specifically for client and...
|
by: Karl Irvin |
last post by:
To use the Textstream object, I had to set a Reference to the Microsoft
Scripting Runtime.
This works good with A2000
Is the Scripting Runtime included with A2002 and A2003 so the Reference
won't be broken when my app is opened with those versions.
Also is the Scripting Runtime included as part of the A2000 Runtime Engine
which some of my customers use.
|
by: frostalicious |
last post by:
Used VB.NET (on my client PC) to convert VB6 executable
to .NET executable. Placed the .exe file on a network drive
on my server. From client, ran .NET Wizards "Trust an
Assembly" to make the .exe (on the network drive, on the
server) "Full Trust." From the client, double-click on the
..exe (on the network drive, on the server) and it runs fine.
So far, so good, but...
On the server, where I've installed not VB.NET but .NET
|
by: PaulieS |
last post by:
Hi all.
Am migrating a customer from IIS5 on W2K server to IIS6 on W2K3.
Zipped all the websites and unzipped them to the identical locations
on new server. Used IISMT to migrate metabase.
Got this error when I tried to run a very basic page... code:
<%@ LANGUAGE=vbscript %>
<%
| | |
by: ADezii |
last post by:
The next series of Tips will involve the Microsoft Scripting Runtime Library (Scrrun.dll). This Library is, in my humble opinion, one of the most useful and practical Libraries ever created. With the Scripting Runtime Library, you can retrieve information related to Drives, Folders, Files, and Text Files and set/retrieve certain Attributes of Drives, Folders, Files, and Text Files. Through Methods exposed by this Library, you can also manipulate...
|
by: ADezii |
last post by:
This is the 2nd Tip in a series of Tips on the Microsoft Scripting Runtime Library. The 1st Tip related to Drives, while this Tip will concentrate on the Folders (Directories) in your PC and various methods to retrieve information from and how to manipulate them. The code should be self explanatory and basically documents itself. Should there be any questions related to this Topic, please feel free to ask.
'Accessing Folder Properties
Dim...
|
by: ADezii |
last post by:
This is the 3rd in a series of Tips dealing specifically with the Microsoft Scripting Runtime Library. In this Tip, we'll show you how to return specific Properties relating to Files, as well as various Methods to Copy, Move, and Delete them. The code is self explanatory, so I'll jump right in:
Dim fso As FileSystemObject, fil As File
'Set fso = New Scripting.FileSystemObject OR
Set fso = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
...
|
by: ADezii |
last post by:
This is the last in a series of Tips involving the Microsoft Scripting Runtime Library and deals with creating, opening, writing to, reading from, and closing Text Files via this Library. At this time, the Scripting Library cannot deal with the opening and manipulation of Files in Binary Mode, so we will only demonstrate this functionality as it relates to Text Files. The code is fairly straightforward and sparsely commented, so I will not bore...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
| | |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
| | |
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |
