473,224 Members | 1,481 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,224 software developers and data experts.

function pointer to a delegate

Hi.

Is there way to have a function pointer to a delegate in c++/cli that
would allow me to pass delegates with the same signatures as
parameters to a method?

I'm working with managed code. Let's say we have 2 delegates:
public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );

classA::method1( )
{
int i = 1;
doSomething( );
m_obj->FirstDelegate( i );
}

class A::method2( )
{
doSomething( );
int j = 2;
m_obj->SecondDelegate( j );
}

Is there a way to have a function pointer to a delegate so that I can
just have a common function that would take the delegate as a
parameter:

class A::methodInsteadOf1And2( delegateFunctionPointer )
{
int i = 3;
m_obj->delegateFunctionPointer( i );
}

thanks,
vcq
Nov 11 '08 #1
10 2072
vcquestions <vc*********@gmail.comkirjutas:
Hi.

Is there way to have a function pointer to a delegate in c++/cli that
would allow me to pass delegates with the same signatures as
parameters to a method?

I'm working with managed code. Let's say we have 2 delegates:
In C++ there are no delegates (nor managed code). You will probably get
better answers by posting in some MS newsgroups or forums.

In C++, you can form a pointer to a method in a class, with given
signature, which can resolve to different actual methods when actually
called. I am quite sure this is not helpful for you so I don't give an
example.

Regards
Paavo
Nov 11 '08 #2
Paavo Helde <no****@ebi.eekirjutas:
vcquestions <vc*********@gmail.comkirjutas:
>Hi.

Is there way to have a function pointer to a delegate in c++/cli that
would allow me to pass delegates with the same signatures as
parameters to a method?

I'm working with managed code. Let's say we have 2 delegates:

In C++ there are no delegates (nor managed code). You will probably get
better answers by posting in some MS newsgroups or forums.
Oops sorry, mixed up the newsgroup (again!). We are in a mircosoft ng, so
delegates are presumably on-topic. Too bad I don't know anything about them
:-(

Paavo

Nov 11 '08 #3
vcquestions wrote:
Hi.

Is there way to have a function pointer to a delegate in c++/cli that
would allow me to pass delegates with the same signatures as
parameters to a method?

I'm working with managed code. Let's say we have 2 delegates:
public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
That's two delegate types with the same signature.
>
classA::method1( )
{
int i = 1;
doSomething( );
m_obj->FirstDelegate( i );
That won't work, you can't use the -operator with a type name.

Maybe if you are a little more careful to distinguish between delegate
types, methods (aka member functions), and delegate instances, we'll be able
to answer your question.
}

class A::method2( )
{
doSomething( );
int j = 2;
m_obj->SecondDelegate( j );
}

Is there a way to have a function pointer to a delegate so that I can
just have a common function that would take the delegate as a
parameter:

class A::methodInsteadOf1And2( delegateFunctionPointer )
{
int i = 3;
m_obj->delegateFunctionPointer( i );
}

thanks,
vcq

Nov 12 '08 #4
Ben, thanks for replying. I was trying to figure out a way to pass a
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.

I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. Is that a correct assumption? If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.

Thanks!
vcq

public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here

//argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;

//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );

//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );

//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}
Nov 16 '08 #5
vcquestions wrote:
Ben, thanks for replying. I was trying to figure out a way to pass a
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.

I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. Is that a correct assumption? If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.
Yes, but... dynamic invocation is much more expensive.

The intended way to invoke a delegate is just

dl->Invoke(the parameters are typesafe here);

or even simpler,

dl(the parameters go here);
>
Thanks!
vcq

public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here

//argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;

//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );

//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );

//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}

Nov 17 '08 #6
in my example ( previous post ), where I pass delegates to CommonMethod
( System::Delegate^ test), I can't just
call test->Invoke( params ) or test( params ) since compiler has no
knowledge of how to resolve this call ( any delegate could be passed )
so I have to pay price for late binding. ( Invoke is not even exposed
on the System::Delegate ). Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

That's why I was trying to figure out if there is a better way to
handle this situation ( have common code that invokes delegates with
the same signature - e.g., I can pass the whole object on which I
invoke a delegate and some param that I would switch on and do: obj-
>Del1( ); or obj->Del2( ) ), but the switch statement does not really
help in making code clean. I guess there is no magic - the above 2
choices is all I have...

Thanks!
On Nov 17, 8:21*am, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
vcquestions wrote:
Ben, thanks for replying. *I was trying to figure out a way to pass a
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. *This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). *When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.
I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. *Is that a correct assumption? *If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.

Yes, but... dynamic invocation is much more expensive.

The intended way to invoke a delegate is just

dl->Invoke(the parameters are typesafe here);

or even simpler,

dl(the parameters go here);


Thanks!
vcq
* * * *public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
* * * *public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
* * * * * * * * * * * * * //argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;
//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );
//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Nov 17 '08 #7
vcquestions wrote:
in my example ( previous post ), where I pass delegates to
CommonMethod ( System::Delegate^ test), I can't just
call test->Invoke( params ) or test( params ) since compiler has no
knowledge of how to resolve this call ( any delegate could be passed )
so I have to pay price for late binding. ( Invoke is not even exposed
on the System::Delegate ). Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

That's why I was trying to figure out if there is a better way to
handle this situation ( have common code that invokes delegates with
the same signature - e.g., I can pass the whole object on which I
invoke a delegate and some param that I would switch on and do: obj-
>Del1( ); or obj->Del2( ) ), but the switch statement does not really
help in making code clean. I guess there is no magic - the above 2
choices is all I have...
But the functions all have the same signature, you why are you using
System::Delegate? Use an exact delegate type and then early binding will
work.
>
Thanks!
On Nov 17, 8:21 am, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
>vcquestions wrote:
>>Ben, thanks for replying. I was trying to figure out a way to pass a
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.
>>I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. Is that a correct assumption? If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.

Yes, but... dynamic invocation is much more expensive.

The intended way to invoke a delegate is just

dl->Invoke(the parameters are typesafe here);

or even simpler,

dl(the parameters go here);


>>Thanks!
vcq
>>public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
>>void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
>>//argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;
>>//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );
>>//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
>>//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nov 18 '08 #8
I posted the answer yesterday - not sure where it is ( maybe I did a
reply to author )...

We do have delegates with the same signature:
public delegate void OnSecondEvent( int i );
public delegate void OnCommonEvent( int i );

void SameSignatureMethod( OnCommonEvent^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
test->Invoke( 55 );
}

I incorrectly used c-style cast to pass an instance of delegate
( which causes an exception ):
SameSignatureMethod( OnCommonEvent^ )( m_pA->SecondHandler );

Using reinterpret_cast works fine.
SameSignatureMethod( reinterpret_cast<OnCommonEvent^>( m_pA-
>SecondHandler ) );
Need to review my casting...

Thanks Ben!
vcq

On Nov 17, 6:20*pm, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
vcquestions wrote:
in my example ( previous post ), where I pass delegates to
CommonMethod ( System::Delegate^ test), I can't just
call test->Invoke( params ) or test( params ) since compiler has no
knowledge of how to resolve this call ( any delegate could be passed )
so I have to pay price for late binding. *( Invoke is not even exposed
on the System::Delegate ). *Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
That's why I was trying to figure out if there is a better way to
handle this situation ( have common code that invokes delegates with
the same signature - e.g., I can pass the whole object on which I
invoke a delegate and some param that I would switch on and do: obj-
Del1( ); or obj->Del2( ) ), but the switch statement does not really
help in making code clean. *I guess there is no magic - the above 2
choices is all I have...

But the functions all have the same signature, you why are you using
System::Delegate? *Use an exact delegate type and then early binding will
work.


Thanks!
On Nov 17, 8:21 am, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
vcquestions wrote:
Ben, thanks for replying. I was trying to figure out a way to pass a
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.
>I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. Is that a correct assumption? If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.
Yes, but... dynamic invocation is much more expensive.
The intended way to invoke a delegate is just
dl->Invoke(the parameters are typesafe here);
or even simpler,
dl(the parameters go here);
>Thanks!
vcq
>public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
>void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
>//argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;
>//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );
>//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
>//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Nov 18 '08 #9


"vcquestions" <vc*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:a1**********************************@q26g2000 prq.googlegroups.com...
I posted the answer yesterday - not sure where it is ( maybe I did a
reply to author )...

We do have delegates with the same signature:
public delegate void OnSecondEvent( int i );
public delegate void OnCommonEvent( int i );
Why? Of course you will have many functions (methods) with the same
signature, but why would you need or want more than one delegate type with
that signature.

In this case, it would be best to simply use the Action<Tdelegate which
"Encapsulates a method that takes a single parameter and does not return a
value." and not create any delegate types at all.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/018hxwa8.aspx

>
void SameSignatureMethod( OnCommonEvent^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
test->Invoke( 55 );
}

I incorrectly used c-style cast to pass an instance of delegate
( which causes an exception ):
SameSignatureMethod( OnCommonEvent^ )( m_pA->SecondHandler );

Using reinterpret_cast works fine.
SameSignatureMethod( reinterpret_cast<OnCommonEvent^>( m_pA-
>>SecondHandler ) );

Need to review my casting...

Thanks Ben!
vcq

On Nov 17, 6:20 pm, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
>vcquestions wrote:
in my example ( previous post ), where I pass delegates to
CommonMethod ( System::Delegate^ test), I can't just
call test->Invoke( params ) or test( params ) since compiler has no
knowledge of how to resolve this call ( any delegate could be passed )
so I have to pay price for late binding. ( Invoke is not even exposed
on the System::Delegate ). Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
That's why I was trying to figure out if there is a better way to
handle this situation ( have common code that invokes delegates with
the same signature - e.g., I can pass the whole object on which I
invoke a delegate and some param that I would switch on and do: obj-
Del1( ); or obj->Del2( ) ), but the switch statement does not really
help in making code clean. I guess there is no magic - the above 2
choices is all I have...

But the functions all have the same signature, you why are you using
System::Delegate? Use an exact delegate type and then early binding will
work.


Thanks!
On Nov 17, 8:21 am, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
vcquestions wrote:
Ben, thanks for replying. I was trying to figure out a way to pass a
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.
>>I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. Is that a correct assumption? If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.
>Yes, but... dynamic invocation is much more expensive.
>The intended way to invoke a delegate is just
>dl->Invoke(the parameters are typesafe here);
>or even simpler,
>dl(the parameters go here);
>>Thanks!
vcq
>>public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
>>void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
>>//argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;
>>//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );
>>//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
>>//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}- Hide quoted text -
>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Nov 18 '08 #10
Why? Of course you will have many functions (methods) with the same
signature, but why would you need or want more than one delegate type with
that signature.
purely out of curiousity :) - originally trying to figure out how to
pass delegates as parameters and then trying to figure out why I could
not pass 2 delegates with the same signature to the common handling
functions. As it turns out ( from this thread ), I can & in a few
different ways.
In this case, it would be best to simply use the Action<Tdelegate
understood.

Thanks!
On Nov 18, 4:08*pm, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
"vcquestions" <vcquesti...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:a1**********************************@q26g2000 prq.googlegroups.com...
I posted the answer yesterday - not sure where it is ( maybe I did a
reply to author )...
We do have delegates with the same signature:
public delegate void OnSecondEvent( int i );
public delegate void OnCommonEvent( int i );

Why? *Of course you will have many functions (methods) with the same
signature, but why would you need or want more than one delegate type with
that signature.

In this case, it would be best to simply use the Action<Tdelegate which
"Encapsulates a method that takes a single parameter and does not return a
value." and not create any delegate types at all.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/018hxwa8.aspx


void SameSignatureMethod( OnCommonEvent^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
test->Invoke( 55 );
}
I incorrectly used c-style cast to pass an instance of delegate
( which causes an exception ):
SameSignatureMethod( OnCommonEvent^ )( m_pA->SecondHandler );
Using reinterpret_cast works fine.
SameSignatureMethod( reinterpret_cast<OnCommonEvent^>( m_pA-
>SecondHandler ) );
Need to review my casting...
Thanks Ben!
vcq
On Nov 17, 6:20 pm, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
vcquestions wrote:
in my example ( previous post ), where I pass delegates to
CommonMethod ( System::Delegate^ test), I can't just
call test->Invoke( params ) or test( params ) since compiler has no
knowledge of how to resolve this call ( any delegate could be passed)
so I have to pay price for late binding. *( Invoke is not even exposed
on the System::Delegate ). *Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
That's why I was trying to figure out if there is a better way to
handle this situation ( have common code that invokes delegates with
the same signature - e.g., I can pass the whole object on which I
invoke a delegate and some param that I would switch on and do: obj-
Del1( ); or obj->Del2( ) ), but the switch statement does not really
help in making code clean. *I guess there is no magic - the above 2
choices is all I have...
But the functions all have the same signature, you why are you using
System::Delegate? *Use an exact delegate type and then early bindingwill
work.
Thanks!
On Nov 17, 8:21 am, "Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <r...@nospam.nospamwrote:
vcquestions wrote:
Ben, thanks for replying. I was trying to figure out a way to passa
delegate as a parameter so that I could pass delegates with the same
signatures to a method that handles common code. This is straight
forward ( and does not require function pointers which I thought I'd
use originally ). When I run code below, I see that DynamicInvoke
walks the chain of delegates while Method->Invoke just invokes one
method.
>I suspect that implementation of DynamicInvoke just walks the chain
and calls Method->Invoke for each. Is that a correct assumption? If
DynamicInvoke does not incur any additional cost, it's probably the
way to go.
Yes, but... dynamic invocation is much more expensive.
The intended way to invoke a delegate is just
dl->Invoke(the parameters are typesafe here);
or even simpler,
dl(the parameters go here);
>Thanks!
vcq
>public delegate void FirstDelegate( int i );
public delegate void SecondDelegate( int i );
>void CommonMethod(System::Delegate^ test)
{
//!CommonCode goes here
>//argumest to the invoked method (should be
passed in as well)
array<Object^>^ pArgs = gcnew array<Object^>(1);
pArgs[0] = 3;
>//dynamic invoke
test->DynamicInvoke( pArgs );
>//method->invoke
test->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
>//walk the chain of delegates - same as DynamicInvoke ?
array<Delegate^>^ tests = test->GetInvocationList( );
for ( int i = 0; i < tests->Length; ++i )
{
tests[i]->Method->Invoke( test->Target, pArgs );
}
}- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Nov 19 '08 #11

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

4
by: Ole | last post by:
hello, Little problem: struct operatable { char * operatable_id; int ( * delegate ) ( ... ); somedatatype data; };
3
by: David N | last post by:
Hi All, I just wonder if in C#, I can develop a user defined control that can call its parent function which is not yet developed. For example, how do I make my user control call a...
1
by: edgekaos | last post by:
I want to pass a structure to a unmanaged dll function. Inside this structure there is a pointer to a callback function. Unmanaged code will call this managed function as a callback function. I...
4
by: H.B. | last post by:
Hi, I successfully implement a static callback function for my dll usign delegates. Now, I need to use member function instead of static function. How can I make that (in Managed C++). Hugo
6
by: Peter Oliphant | last post by:
Here is a simplification of my code. Basically, I have a class (A) that can be constructed using a function pointer to a function that returns a bool with no parameters. I then want to create an...
10
by: ChrisB | last post by:
Coming from a C/C++ background, how would I pass a function pointer to a function? I want to write a function that handles certain thread spawning. Here's what I'm trying to invision: function(...
2
by: sg71.cherub | last post by:
Here I am meeting a problem. I am transfering unmanaged C/C++ codes to managed C# codes. For the general C/C++ function pointer, it is easy to implement its function by C# delegate. e.g. Declare...
0
by: Haxan | last post by:
Hi, I have an unmanaged application that converts a function pointer to a delegate and then pass this as a parameter(delegate) to a managed function which then invokes it. Currently Im able to...
6
by: jmDesktop | last post by:
In a function that takes another function (function pointer) as a argument, or the callback function, which is the one that "calls back"? I'm having a hard time understanding the language. Am I...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next online meeting of the Access Europe User Group will be on Wednesday 6 Dec 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, Mike...
0
by: veera ravala | last post by:
ServiceNow is a powerful cloud-based platform that offers a wide range of services to help organizations manage their workflows, operations, and IT services more efficiently. At its core, ServiceNow...
0
by: VivesProcSPL | last post by:
Obviously, one of the original purposes of SQL is to make data query processing easy. The language uses many English-like terms and syntax in an effort to make it easy to learn, particularly for...
0
by: jianzs | last post by:
Introduction Cloud-native applications are conventionally identified as those designed and nurtured on cloud infrastructure. Such applications, rooted in cloud technologies, skillfully benefit from...
0
by: mar23 | last post by:
Here's the situation. I have a form called frmDiceInventory with subform called subfrmDice. The subform's control source is linked to a query called qryDiceInventory. I've been trying to pick up the...
0
by: abbasky | last post by:
### Vandf component communication method one: data sharing ​ Vandf components can achieve data exchange through data sharing, state sharing, events, and other methods. Vandf's data exchange method...
0
by: stefan129 | last post by:
Hey forum members, I'm exploring options for SSL certificates for multiple domains. Has anyone had experience with multi-domain SSL certificates? Any recommendations on reliable providers or specific...
0
Git
by: egorbl4 | last post by:
Скачал я git, хотел начать настройку, а там вылезло вот это Что это? Что мне с этим делать? ...
1
by: davi5007 | last post by:
Hi, Basically, I am trying to automate a field named TraceabilityNo into a web page from an access form. I've got the serial held in the variable strSearchString. How can I get this into the...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.