469,927 Members | 1,623 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,927 developers. It's quick & easy.

CommonDialog

Hey,

I'm using the CommonDialog object to load a dialog which allows the
user to select the files they want to upload. This solution works
perfectly on computers that have some Visual Studio applications
installed, but on those without any, it won't work since it doesn't
have the required file registered.

The code I'm currently using:

ComDlg = new ActiveXObject("MSComDlg.CommonDialog");

ComDlg.Filter = "All Files(*.*)|*.*";
ComDlg.FilterIndex = 1;
ComDlg.Flags = 0x200 | 0x1000 | 0x80000;
ComDlg.MaxFileSize = 512;

ComDlg.ShowOpen();
Does anyone have a way I can still use the CommonDialog object on
computers that dont have comdlg32.dll registered correctly? I have no
problem putting the comdlg32.dll file on the users computer, but how
can I register it/use it without registering it?

Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Yaniv

Nov 23 '05 #1
25 10968
ya*********@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a way I can still use the CommonDialog object on
computers that dont have comdlg32.dll registered correctly? I have no
problem putting the comdlg32.dll file on the users computer, but how
can I register it/use it without registering it?


You cannot. There is either support for this control or there is not.
There is no between. And since you have correctly identified the problem
to be not script-related, why are you insisting on posting in to this
newsgroup dealing with _J(ava)Script/ECMAScript_?
PointedEars
Nov 23 '05 #2
ya*********@gmail.com wrote:
I have no
problem putting the comdlg32.dll file on the users computer, but how
can I register it/use it without registering it?


You certainly should have a problem with putting comdlg32.dll on the users'
computers as you don't have a license for that. You may only redistribute
those files which Microsoft list as redistributable and they are quite
explicit that comdlg32.dll is not redistributable.

See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q216368/
Nov 23 '05 #3
VK

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
You cannot. There is either support for this control or there is not.
There is no between. And since you have correctly identified the problem
to be not script-related, why are you insisting on posting in to this
newsgroup dealing with _J(ava)Script/ECMAScript_?


Maybe because JScript is used as a tier to access system resources?

To OP: do not pay attention to <Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn> - he's
trying to be local spooky man, but he's not spooky at all really. Just
say him "grrrh" out loud and he will run away. :-)

Presuming you have all rights in your LAN:

First you have to install free Microsoft .Net Framework package on each
computer.

Patch .Net Framework with 1.1 patch (if needed).

To start using a .dll library first you need to register it in GAC
(Global Assembly Cash). The simplest way I've found so far is using
Windows Explorer:
1. Run two instances of Explorer.
2. In the first Explorer navigate to the folder where your dll is
located
3. In the second Explorer navigate to the folder <Windows>\assembly
4. Drag and drop dll from the first Explorer window to the second one.
5. It should work now.

NB: it must be Windows Explorer, not a folder window, otherwise the
bird will not fly.

Nov 23 '05 #4
VK

Duncan Booth wrote:
You certainly should have a problem with putting comdlg32.dll on the users'
computers as you don't have a license for that. You may only redistribute
those files which Microsoft list as redistributable and they are quite
explicit that comdlg32.dll is not redistributable.


Damn right! But a wait a second... comdlg32.dll is not a package
library, it native to Windows XP SP2

To OP:
What OS are you running on other machines?

Nov 23 '05 #5
VK wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
You cannot. There is either support for this control or there is not.
There is no between. And since you have correctly identified the problem
to be not script-related, why are you insisting on posting in to this
newsgroup dealing with _J(ava)Script/ECMAScript_?


Maybe because JScript is used as a tier to access system resources?


You have not understood that his is not a question very likely to be
answered here since it is off-topic despite the fact that JScript is
the used interface language: it is not a language problem but one of
the underlying system configuration. He could have used VBScript and
any other interface language and nothing changed.

There is a group dealing with ActiveX-specific _configuration_ issues.
It is not this one.
PointedEars
Nov 23 '05 #6
ya*********@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have a way I can still use the CommonDialog object on
computers that dont have comdlg32.dll registered correctly? I have no
problem putting the comdlg32.dll file on the users computer, but how
can I register it/use it without registering it?


Registering it without registering it?
Isn't that impossible by definition?

Anyway can't you distribute it like any other activex on the web?
But even then it still needs to be registered.
Nov 23 '05 #7

ya*********@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,

I'm using the CommonDialog object to load a dialog which allows the
user to select the files they want to upload. This solution works
perfectly on computers that have some Visual Studio applications
installed, but on those without any, it won't work since it doesn't
have the required file registered.

The code I'm currently using:

ComDlg = new ActiveXObject("MSComDlg.CommonDialog");

ComDlg.Filter = "All Files(*.*)|*.*";
ComDlg.FilterIndex = 1;
ComDlg.Flags = 0x200 | 0x1000 | 0x80000;
ComDlg.MaxFileSize = 512;

ComDlg.ShowOpen();
Does anyone have a way I can still use the CommonDialog object on
computers that dont have comdlg32.dll registered correctly? I have no
problem putting the comdlg32.dll file on the users computer, but how
can I register it/use it without registering it?

Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Yaniv


Must you really use the active x object to achieve what you want to do?
There is another way. Users can also upload files through a form.
For example:

<form>
....
<input type = "file">
....
</form>

Nov 23 '05 #8
rf
VK wrote:
Duncan Booth wrote:
You certainly should have a problem with putting comdlg32.dll on the users'
computers as you don't have a license for that. You may only redistribute
those files which Microsoft list as redistributable and they are quite
explicit that comdlg32.dll is not redistributable.

comdlg32.dll by itself is not redistributable but it *is* redistrubitable
as part of other other redistributable objects, the reason being
comdlg32.dll and comctrl.dll (for example) go together. Change only one of
them and your system will break.
Damn right! But a wait a second... comdlg32.dll is not a package
library, it native to Windows XP SP2
Where did you get that idea?

comdlg32.dll has been around since before windows 95. It shipped as part of
win32s, the 32 bit addon to windows 3.1, about eighteen years ago.
To OP:
What OS are you running on other machines?


Indeed. I doubt that comdlg32.dll would install on a Mac :-)

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #9
rf wrote:
Duncan Booth wrote:
You certainly should have a problem with putting comdlg32.dll on the
users' computers as you don't have a license for that. You may only
redistribute those files which Microsoft list as redistributable and
they are quite explicit that comdlg32.dll is not redistributable.


comdlg32.dll by itself is not redistributable but it *is*
redistrubitable as part of other other redistributable objects, the
reason being comdlg32.dll and comctrl.dll (for example) go together.
Change only one of them and your system will break.


Do you have evidence for this? Everything I can find says comgld32.dll is
not redistributable.
Nov 23 '05 #10
VK

Duncan Booth wrote:
Do you have evidence for this? Everything I can find says comgld32.dll is
not redistributable.


Let's us clear up the situation based on OP issue:

He's using MSComDlg.CommonDialog which is COMDLG32.OCX control
available on Windows XP with Visual Studio / Visual Studio # installed.
You have to either install a copy of Visual Studio on each computer or
you have to get a destribution license from Microsoft to register this
control on each computer.

COMDLG32.DLL library is presented in each Windows installation starting
Windows 98 at least. So if you have a legal copy of Windows, you
already have a legal copy of COMDLG32.DLL - so no destribution is
needed.

The trick is that you cannot use ActiveXObject() on .DLL because it's
not a control, it's a library you can link to your project to make your
own control.

A side walk for the OP situation (presuming they have basic Microsoft
Office package installed) would be to call Excel dialog window via
ActiveXObject. This dialog (but not Word's one) can be patched to
accept multiple file selection.

Nov 23 '05 #11
rf
Duncan Booth wrote:
rf wrote:
Duncan Booth wrote:
You certainly should have a problem with putting comdlg32.dll on the
users' computers as you don't have a license for that. You may only
redistribute those files which Microsoft list as redistributable and
they are quite explicit that comdlg32.dll is not redistributable.


comdlg32.dll by itself is not redistributable but it *is*
redistrubitable as part of other other redistributable objects, the
reason being comdlg32.dll and comctrl.dll (for example) go together.
Change only one of them and your system will break.


Do you have evidence for this? Everything I can find says comgld32.dll is
not redistributable.


Hmmm. You may well be right. I looked at the "note" in the microsoft page
you refered to wherein they say that comctl32 and comdlg32 are not
redistributable. They go on to say the "if you must update comctl32.dll,
download 401comupt.exe...". I know of the existance of the latter[1] and
naturally assumed that comdlg32 was part of it. Perhaps it isn't.

[1] I have never used xxxcomupt.exe. Some of my software *does* rely on
newer versions of comctl32 than may not be available on older systems
(notably 95 and 98) however I simply inform my users that they must have
IE6 installed to use my software, as the IE6 install includes a quite up to
date comctl32, and said users are far more comfortable installing IE6 than
they are installing some vague redist exe the have to download from MS.
Never really bothered thinking about comdlg32 as I have never had a version
issue with it.

However, as VK has pointed out the OP is really talking about comdlg32.ocx,
which is redistributable.

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #12
rf
VK wrote:
Duncan Booth wrote:
Do you have evidence for this? Everything I can find says comgld32.dll is
not redistributable.
Let's us clear up the situation based on OP issue:

He's using MSComDlg.CommonDialog which is COMDLG32.OCX control


True. Missed that first time :-)
available on Windows XP with Visual Studio / Visual Studio # installed.
You have to either install a copy of Visual Studio on each computer or
you have to get a destribution license from Microsoft to register this
control on each computer.
Lets clear it up entirely and avoid anybody thinking that their users might
have to have visual studio installed. At several hundred dollars a copy...

The following knowledge base article tells all:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;168917
COMDLG32.DLL library is presented in each Windows installation starting
Windows 98 at least.
95, and before that win32s.
So if you have a legal copy of Windows, you
already have a legal copy of COMDLG32.DLL - so no destribution is
needed.
Yes.
The trick is that you cannot use ActiveXObject() on .DLL because it's
not a control, it's a library you can link to your project to make your
own control.
Er, you link to it so as to use the common dialogs. If you want to make
your own control you, well, make your own control.
A side walk for the OP situation (presuming they have basic Microsoft
Office package installed) would be to call Excel dialog window via
ActiveXObject. This dialog (but not Word's one) can be patched to
accept multiple file selection.


?

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #13
VK
> VK wrote:
A side walk for the OP situation (presuming they have basic Microsoft
Office package installed) would be to call Excel dialog window via
ActiveXObject. This dialog (but not Word's one) can be patched to
accept multiple file selection.

rf wrote: ?


new ActiveXObject('Application.Excel')
and later Dialogs(wdDialogFileOpen)

This works but it's too ugly and unrealiable (too many if's)

I came across this problem while doing my JavaScript file manager. The
question was: presuming user granted all requested privileges - how to
display system file dialog and get results back?

So far my answer is "no way unless you're acting as a miserable
hacker". Truthfully I do not understand all this licensing dancing with
comdlg. IMHO user already paid in full for the honnor to click all
Windows buttons and open all Windows windows - when she bought her copy
of Windows. An attempt to collect additional bucks on this later seems
a bit of a scam to me.

Interstingly enough Gesko seems to have no problem to access system
dialogs via XPConnect:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/7cd482713658987b/61b24d432da604b8>

I wondering now if this is license clear? ...

Nov 23 '05 #14
rf
VK wrote:
VK wrote:
A side walk for the OP situation (presuming they have basic Microsoft
Office package installed) would be to call Excel dialog window via
ActiveXObject. This dialog (but not Word's one) can be patched to
accept multiple file selection.


rf wrote:
?


new ActiveXObject('Application.Excel')
and later Dialogs(wdDialogFileOpen)

This works but it's too ugly and unrealiable (too many if's)

I came across this problem while doing my JavaScript file manager. The
question was: presuming user granted all requested privileges - how to
display system file dialog and get results back?

So far my answer is "no way unless you're acting as a miserable
hacker". Truthfully I do not understand all this licensing dancing with
comdlg. IMHO user already paid in full for the honnor to click all
Windows buttons and open all Windows windows - when she bought her copy
of Windows. An attempt to collect additional bucks on this later seems
a bit of a scam to me.

Interstingly enough Gesko seems to have no problem to access system
dialogs via XPConnect:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/7cd482713658987b/61b24d432da604b8>

I wondering now if this is license clear? ...


I repeat:

?

That is, I have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

What has firing up excel do to with running the commondialog ocx control?

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #15
VK

rf wrote:
I repeat:

?

That is, I have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

What has firing up excel do to with running the commondialog ocx control?


OK, attempt #2 :-)

1) I have a browser (IE or Gesko-based)
2) User allowed me to use ActiveXObject (IE) or XPConnect (Gesko)
3) Using this privilege I want to display system FileOpen dialog box
and return user selection to my JavaScript program. Ideally I would
like to display a multiple choice FileOpen dialog but even single file
will suffice to start with.
4) I can do it easily by using XPConnect on Gesko (check the link from
the previous post for my sample code)
5) I cannot do it in anyhow reliable on Internet Explorer because
neither ActiveXObject nor even WScript.Shell still do not provide me
the needed resources.
6) The only way I found *so far* is to create an instance of Microsoft
Office application using ActiveXObject, get an instance of its dialog
window, patch it in the needed way and use it.
7) Experiments show that the Word FileOpen dialog will not survive the
surgery in 30%. Excel FileOpen dialog survives the surgery in 99% of
cases.
8) In any case it is closer to a hacking than to a development so I'd
really like to find a better way covering Windows 98, NT, 2000, ME and
XP

Nov 23 '05 #16
VK wrote:
[...]
1) I have a browser (IE or Gesko-based)
2) User allowed me to use ActiveXObject (IE) or XPConnect (Gesko)
[...]
4) I can do it easily by using XPConnect on Gesko [...]


It's (Netscape) _Gecko_, like the lizard.

<http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/gecko.html>
PointedEars
Nov 23 '05 #17
VK

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
It's (Netscape) _Gecko_, like the lizard.

<http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/gecko.html>


Wow... That was deep... I got stumbled for a while before "like a
lizard dropping its queue" came in my mind. Did I get it right? If so,
then I meant "that" Gesko you can have by using official sources from
<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code>
(which includes FireFox).

Nov 23 '05 #18
VK wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
It's (Netscape) _Gecko_, like the lizard.

<http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/gecko.html>
Wow... That was deep... I got stumbled for a while before "like a
lizard dropping its queue" came in my mind. Did I get it right? If so,
then I meant "that" Gesko you can have by using official sources from

^^^^^ <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozilla_Source_Code>
(which includes FireFox).


You are not making any sense. The above was to make clear that Netscape's
marketing name for the combination of Mozilla/5.0's layout engine and the
XPFE is and always has been _Gecko_ (G-E-C-K-O), _not_ "Gesko" (G-E-S-K-O).
Got it?
PointedEars
Nov 23 '05 #19
rf
VK wrote:
rf wrote:
I repeat:

?

That is, I have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

What has firing up excel do to with running the commondialog ocx control?


OK, attempt #2 :-)

1) I have a browser (IE or Gesko-based)
2) User allowed me to use ActiveXObject (IE) or XPConnect (Gesko)
3) Using this privilege I want to display system FileOpen dialog box
and return user selection to my JavaScript program. Ideally I would
like to display a multiple choice FileOpen dialog but even single file
will suffice to start with.
4) I can do it easily by using XPConnect on Gesko (check the link from
the previous post for my sample code)
5) I cannot do it in anyhow reliable on Internet Explorer because
neither ActiveXObject nor even WScript.Shell still do not provide me
the needed resources.
6) The only way I found *so far* is to create an instance of Microsoft
Office application using ActiveXObject, get an instance of its dialog
window, patch it in the needed way and use it.
7) Experiments show that the Word FileOpen dialog will not survive the
surgery in 30%. Excel FileOpen dialog survives the surgery in 99% of
cases.
8) In any case it is closer to a hacking than to a development so I'd
really like to find a better way covering Windows 98, NT, 2000, ME and
XP


Ah, I see what you are getting at now. I did not understand because I got
bogged down in the utter complexity of your approach.

To clarify, you want the standard file open dialog displayed, the user
chooses a file or files and you get the result back to your javascript.

Well, it is really very simple and is exactly what the OP is doing.
Displaying a file open dialog and obtaining the results back.

The OP however is not jumping through all the hoops in the circus.

BTW if you don't like the way the OP has created a new activexobject it
works quite fine if you use a standard <object> to contain commoncontrol.

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #20
VK

rf wrote:
Ah, I see what you are getting at now. I did not understand because I got
bogged down in the utter complexity of your approach.

To clarify, you want the standard file open dialog displayed, the user
chooses a file or files and you get the result back to your javascript.

Well, it is really very simple and is exactly what the OP is doing.
Attempt #3 :-))

My text is quoted, your answers are direct. Try to find there did you
loose me again.
A hint: watch the particular OS and software installation requirements
;-)

..
..
..
He's using MSComDlg.CommonDialog which is COMDLG32.OCX control
True. Missed that first time :-)
available on Windows XP with Visual Studio / Visual Studio # installed.
You have to either install a copy of Visual Studio on each computer or
you have to get a destribution license from Microsoft to register this
control on each computer.
Lets clear it up entirely and avoid anybody thinking that their users
might
have to have visual studio installed. At several hundred dollars a
copy...
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;168917
I'd really like to find a better way covering
Windows 98, NT, 2000, ME and XP


Well, it is really very simple and is exactly what the OP is doing.
Displaying a file open dialog and obtaining the results back.

Nov 23 '05 #21
rf
VK wrote:
rf wrote:
Ah, I see what you are getting at now. I did not understand because I got
bogged down in the utter complexity of your approach.

To clarify, you want the standard file open dialog displayed, the user
chooses a file or files and you get the result back to your javascript.

Well, it is really very simple and is exactly what the OP is doing.


Attempt #3 :-))

My text is quoted, your answers are direct. Try to find there did you
loose me again.
A hint: watch the particular OS and software installation requirements
;-)


I tried. I really did. I spent a whole five minutes trying to figure out
what you are talking about.

I failed.

[rest of untrimmed post trimmed]

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #22
VK

rf wrote:
I tried. I really did. I spent a whole five minutes trying to figure out
what you are talking about.

I failed.


Attempt #4 :-)

1. There is a family of GUI-based OS called "Microsoft Windows".

2. The following members of this family are currently in a more-or-less
significant use :
Windows 98
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP

3. Each and every of these members able to display FileOpen and
FileSaveAs dialogs. These dialogs are rather different from one member
to another but they are always presented. (Quick proof: on any Windows
choose Start > Run > Browse...)

4. There is a browser called "Microsoft Internet Explorer".

5. Starting from the version 5 at least it allows you to access system
resources using new ActiveXObject(...) call.
NB: Naturally it involves security considerations, but I'm talking
about technical issues now.

6. It would be nice to use ActiveXObject to call say native FileOpen
dialog and to get the user input into your JavaScript program.

7. On Windows XP you can do it by using the OCX control mentioned in
the OP's post.

8. Unfortunately this OCX control is presented only on particular
installations of Windows XP (with Visual Studio) or this OCX control
has to be destributed on each machine of question wich is not always an
option - and plus you have to pay to Microsoft for that.

9. The paragraph 2. of this text lists all Windows family members I'd
like to support - meaning I'd like to display system FileOpen dialog
w/o additional software installation on each involved machine, using
only ActiveXObject(SomeThing) and SomeThing.somePropertyOrMethod.

10. I came to the (possibly wrong) conclusion that paragraph 9. is not
doable for the set of OS listed in the paragraph 2.
- unless some semi-hacking methods implemented like calling Microsoft
Office application dialogs.

Nov 23 '05 #23
rf
VK wrote:
rf wrote:
I tried. I really did. I spent a whole five minutes trying to figure out
what you are talking about.

I failed.
Attempt #4 :-)


OK. I will try again.
1. There is a family of GUI-based OS called "Microsoft Windows".
Yes.
2. The following members of this family are currently in a more-or-less
significant use :
Windows 98
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP
Yep. You listed them in the wrong order though.

95, 98 and ME are the same thing, just different releases.

NT, 2000, XP are also the same thing, just different releases. They are,
however, an entirely different operating system than the other 9x
"versions".
3. Each and every of these members able to display FileOpen and
FileSaveAs dialogs. These dialogs are rather different from one member
to another but they are always presented. (Quick proof: on any Windows
choose Start > Run > Browse...)
Yes.
4. There is a browser called "Microsoft Internet Explorer".
No argument here, except that IE is so badly designed that some question
that it is in fact an *internet* browser at all.
5. Starting from the version 5 at least it allows you to access system
resources using new ActiveXObject(...) call.
NB: Naturally it involves security considerations, but I'm talking
about technical issues now.
Won't research this. I'll take your word on it.
6. It would be nice to use ActiveXObject to call say native FileOpen
dialog and to get the user input into your JavaScript program.
Yes. It would be nice. A securty breach could be envisaged as well.
7. On Windows XP you can do it by using the OCX control mentioned in
the OP's post.
What does the particular version of windows have to do with this? As
mentioned before XP is one of the NT versions. "NT" started out as version
3.0 and went quickly IIRC to 3.5 . Then came "NT", version 4.0. There was
IIRC a 4.1 which was 4.0 with a 98ish style skin instead of the 95is skin
of 4.0. Then there was NT release 5, commonly known as 2000. Then there was
NT release 5.1, commonly known as XP.

Fire up your XP windows explorer and drop down help>about. It will tell you
that you are running 5.1.
8. Unfortunately this OCX control is presented only on particular
installations of Windows XP>(with Visual Studio) or this OCX control
has to be destributed on each machine of question wich is not always an
option - and plus you have to pay to Microsoft for that.
Rubbish. Go over to http://microsoft.com and search for "comdlg32.ocx".
The second hit tells you how you can set up a download, for *free*.
9. The paragraph 2. of this text
What paragraph 2 of what text?
lists all Windows family members I'd
like to support - meaning I'd like to display system FileOpen dialog
w/o additional software installation on each involved machine, using
only ActiveXObject(SomeThing) and SomeThing.somePropertyOrMethod.
Er, we have covered that above. Simply download it, for free.
10. I came to the (possibly wrong) conclusion that paragraph 9. is not
doable for the set of OS listed in the paragraph 2.
- unless some semi-hacking methods implemented like calling Microsoft
Office application dialogs.


Once again you are drifting into totally unintellibile blather and I no
longer understand what you are talking about.

Care to try for a #5?

However I think we have covered the OP's question. Simply redistribute
comdls32.ocx. End of story.

--
Cheers, Richard.
If you are reading this using google groups then also read this:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/ if you have not done so
already. If you reply to this post without correct quoting and attribution,
as per the above, I, and others, may just totally ignore you.
Nov 23 '05 #24
rf wrote:
[...]
However I think we have covered the OP's question.
Simply redistribute comdls32.ocx. End of story.


I did state that long ago, did I not?[1] Thank you for
wasting precious bandwidth with this off-topic thread.

<http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/pots1.html#ps1OToc>
PointedEars, shaking his head
___________
[1] <news:48****************@PointedEars.de>
Nov 23 '05 #25
VK

rf wrote:
2. The following members of this family are currently in a more-or-less
significant use :
Windows 98
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows ME
Windows XP
Yep. You listed them in the wrong order though.


I listed them in the relevance of the posted problem, by how relevant
OCX / DLL changed / got slightly-totally incompatible.
If you have some development experience you agree on that, otherwise
just take my word for it.
Care to try for a #5?


I will - but now I'm not sure if you are really willing to understand
the problem - or you are just making some strange public statement
about my ability to express myself.

Attempt #5

document.execCommand('Open') displays Internet Explorer Open dialog.

At the moment you call this method you don't know (though you may check
it) and you don't really care what kind of FileOpen dialog will be
displayed: rather plain of Windows 98, left-panned of ME, "fat and
dimensional" of XP, extended "Office style" of XP SP2 with latest
Office installed.

I also do not need to install any additional software or care if an
additional control is registered.

Unfortunately document.execCommand('Open') cannot be used as an
interface for my own program: it's simply File > Open command shortcut.

Unfortunately I don't have (or I couldn't find yet) such version
independent, installation free method I could use through
ActiveXObject.

It is a shame because XPConnect on say Firefox allows it to do easily -
w/o any additional controls and Windows versions problems.

Do you follow me?

Nov 23 '05 #26

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by Norbert Staiger | last post: by
reply views Thread by Basil Fenix | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Patrick Blackman | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Simon | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Michael C# | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.