Is there anyway to know what files have to be included in a VB6 aapplication
installer ?

Here is the list of files we used to have but I don't think they all need to
be distributed:


- msvbvm60.dll
- msvcrt.dll
- stdol32.tlb
- oleauth32.dll

Merge modules:

- msdatgrd.ocx
-comcat (microsoft component category manger library)
-msadodc (microsoft ado data control)
- mdactypmsm

The only file that I cannot find on my Vista installation is mdactypmsm
merge module. Can I safely assume I do not need to install all the other
files?

Please advise.

Thanks,

-Jalil

Show quote Hide quote It entirly depends on what is already on the target PC, if they are already
on it then you don't need to include those files, if they are not then you
do! The only way to know if you need to include them is to check every
target PC that it will be installed on. The easy way is just to include them
Rule No:4 in my world - Do not use any ActiveX controls or references.

Ivar

Well, for some apps, I suppose you can get away with that.  Not too many
though, unless you want to re-write tons of functionality that already
exists (and has been thoroughly tested) in ActiveX components.

It's just not that cut and dry, and IMO that's a terrible rule. Yes, I've
written my own ActiveX components which basically duplicate what already
exists in other ActiveX component.  The CommonDialog control included with
VB is a perfect example. I personally think that control is garbage, and so
wrote my own class modules that I use instead. That's the exception, not the
rule.

It may be a terible rule and yes it can be a lot more work, but It's what I
apply to myself since I stopped doing Software development for a living and
just do it for myself & friends or for just a little bit of money from time
to time.
What I want to do with each little app is to have it work on a clean install
of Win98 SE or later where only the exe file is copied in to it. Like you
say, sometimes it means re inventing the wheel. With any project I do, the
VB Componants list is entirly unchecked and the referances list only has the
VB run time files checked. That's how I do it :-)

Ivar

So what do you do when say, a listview is the correct display option ?

A program I wrote is used by a few people, in vague detail it stores and
edits and displays and prints and print previews a lot of info, stats,
queries etc etc etc.
The solution: use common controls ocx, Data Access, data enviroment, data
report blah blah blah
Ahhh! What about rule 4?
ActiceX is not magic, it's just componants with code, write (or download and
edit) resusable usercontrols, include them in your project and there you go,
it all works on any winders that have the VB6 run time files (all included
in any winders less than 10 years old)
So: if you want a listview or print preview or whatever without ActiveX then
build your own. Re-inverting the wheel is a valid view to have, but I like
the total control that no ActiveX can give. Also, You are not limited to
storing data in mdb or dbf files, creating your own custom databases is more
than posible with VB.

Ivar

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:31:16 -0000, "Ivar"
<Ivar.ekstromer***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteDecrying ActiveX controls out of hand is an absolutely ludicrous,
head-in-the-sand approach. I suppose these folks would rewind their
own alternators or fell their own rubber trees when the tyres are worn
out.

MM

Thsi is so going off topic :)

I agree
I'm not knocking ActiveX at all, I'm just giving an alternative view. If
they do what you want and you don't have a preferance to not using them then
go ahead and add them to your projects. I was just stating that there is the
other option of build your own UserControl in your project. this complies
with rule #5: 'It can't be done, you mean it can't be done that way!'

Ivar

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:01:26 -0000, "Ivar"
<Ivar.ekstromer***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

But you could spend hundreds, literally, of hours crafting a
sophisticated control! Seems just a ridiculous waste of time to me.
And it's not as if there's little to choose from, since ActiveX
controls are available in their hundreds, if not a couple of thousand.

MM

MM wrote:
You can buy a piece of furniture at the thrift store for $5 or $10, or you can spend
hundreds, literally, of hours crafting one yourself in your workshop.  It's *fine*
if you're not a craftsman, to take the shortcut and snatch someone else's knockoff.
But ridiculing one who crafts his own "work of perfection" is a bit tawdry, isn't
it?

You're not comparing like with like. Fine, if an ActiveX does not do
what one wants. But if I could find exactly the piece of furniture
that I would build myself, but need spend only a few bucks to acquire
it, I'd be silly to spend hundreds of hours and 100s of bucks to
replicate it. On the other hand, if I want to build furniture as a
craft exercise because it's what I enjoy doing, again, fair enough.
But life's too short to be reinventing hundreds of ActiveX controls
when they can be bought for relative peanuts or are freeware.

MM

MM wrote:
Who's to say whose hobbies are silly?  If it's something you *enjoy* doing, WTH?

There ya go.

If you *need* 100s of ActiveX controls, there's a problem. <g>

I do agree, though, if you "just gotta get the job done" it's often *far*
faster/cheaper to use a ready-built rather than roll-yer-own.  (I don't like to work
in those situations, myself.)

Show quote Hide quote "just gotta get the job done" applies in many everyday situations:
Build a shed? No, I won't fell my own tree and dig a saw pit, I'll pop
down to the lumber yard and buy ready-sawn and planed planks. Bake a
cake? No, I won't plant wheat in my back garden and wait six months
for the harvest, I'll pop down to the shops and buy a bag of flour.
Write an app? No, I won't hand-craft every jump in raw assembler, I'll
pop down to Borland and buy a C compiler. And so it goes...

MM

Show quote Hide quote I don't disagree with you totally. I prefer as few dependancies as
possible, but I try to avoid 3rd party AX controls. The windows common
controls are everywhere, and generally get the job done as they are.

For a long time I've wanted to write an API listview class that duplicates
the functionality of the VB Listview, but also includes all the other
functions that aren't supported, like SetItemIndent and creating a virtual
listview with callbacks, etc..... The time though would be tremendous.

    It's not a black-and-white situation. The genius of VB
is that it allows us to skip a lot of tedious work, particularly
when it comes to GUI elements. The down side is that VB
was designed to be a total solution in that regard, where the
programmer wouldn't need to deal with the underlying process
at all and could instead just use simple object properties. And
that can make VB slow and limited.

   Yet it's feasible to take a little of both worlds. Examples:
I use my own owner-drawn RichTextBox because I needed
"high performance", in terms of speed. But it also means that
I can use the RichEdit v.2 instead of the v. 1 that the VB
OCX wraps. (v. 2 has unlimited Undo, among other things.)
And of course I don't have to ship the OCX.
   Another example is winsock. As near as I can tell, MS only
created the winsock control because sockets functions are
a bit tricky. They weren't really making it easier. They were
just covering over the nitty gritty, making sure that VBers
would never need to know about things like CopyMemory,
VarPtr, etc. (I say "as near as I can tell" because when I needed
winsock code I found it, and there are a couple versions of
a winsock class around. So I've never actually used the winsock
control.)
   When I needed more functionality in a Listbox I just subclassed
the VB Listbox rather than using an owner-drawn version. That
was fine for my needs. (Did you know there's a message
LB_FINDSTRING that lets you check a Listbox for a specific
string, so that you don't have to run a clunky loop, reading
every Listbox item?)
   Maybe I would have used an owner-drawn if VB didn't have
an "intrinsic" Listbox, but I didn't need that. And I've never
needed to use an owner-drawn textbox for anything, so I don't
bother. VB gives me that option.

  In most cases you get a lot more functionality, with less
overhead, less dependencies, and greater speed, if you
avoid OCXs. The OCX means that you're putting an external
middleman between you and the Windows functionality. And
in most cases your options are notably curtailed. MS just
picked a basic set of functionality to provide through the controls,
whether intrinsic or OCX.

    That's why I used the analogy of
spaghetti sauce. Learning to cook doesn't mean that one
will never buy quick takeout, out of some sort of moral principle.
It just means that you *can* have better food, with more
options, than if you only eat what others have prepared. You
don't have to live on "steak bombs" and microwave dinners.

   Or to use your analogy, it would
be unrealistic to make your own tires, but it's not such a
big deal to do your own brakes, or to change your own oil.
Each of those 3 things have completely different pros and cons,
when you look at whether it's better to do it yourself or to pay
for it. As with doing your own brakes, in many cases when
you look at doing something from scratch in VB it turns out that
it's not really such a big deal. There may be some tricky parts,
but there's a big payoff. (Brake jobs are very expensive these
days. :)

You're still relying on the rich edit dll's.  Replacing them would be a
fool's erand.

So the point is it is a time & cost versus benefit calculation.


I think that's the kind of naivety that leads to troubles down the road.  If
brakes were easy to replace, bleed and check *PROPERLY* then the price
wouldn't be high because of simple rules of competition.  An expensive
repair is due to the *real* complexity of doing it *right* and *safely*.
And like brake jobs, if you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be
playing with them as you become a danger not only to yourself but to others.

Don't see anything extraordinary about rewinding an alternator!

Show quoteHide quote

Ok. Wanna build me a private nuclear power station in my back garden
so I never again get a lecky bill? ;)

MM

Sorry, don't understand the connection!  Particularly if your alternator is
a rare one from a classic car (one of my hobbies) rewinding an alternator
(or in some other way repairing it (eg replacing diodes) is a perfectly
valid activity for the enthusiast. Now if you were to talk about building an
exhaust system from sheet steel I may agree..

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:43:55 +0000 (UTC), DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

Show quoteHide quoteReinvent the wheel, obviously...! ;)

Amazingly, all wheels end up being round.

MM

Show quote Hide quote    I'm with you. I think controls should always be
regarded as training wheels. Eliminating them is
not reinventing the wheel, but rather learning to
make one's own spaghetti sauce instead of being
forced, through ignorance, to settle for a bottle of
Ragu -- or worse yet, a microwave spaghetti dinner.
Once the recipe is mastered it can be used over and
over again to producec delicious, healthy meals.

  I think that view of VB is not the majority, though.
In a way it might even be seen as aberrant in
comparison to what seems to have been the originally
intended idea: A RAD tool for quick and cheap intranet
database front-ends that's little more than GUI scripting.
A lot of people want to use VB that way, either for
convenience or for speed, or both. Actually I think that's
one of the biggest strengths of VB: With controls and
variants it's like GUI scripting. At the other extreme it's
more like readable C++. And it works well both ways.

   I remember an ad that used to run in VBPJ, showing a
young man in his early 20's, wearing a backward baseball
cap and carrying a skateboard. (Looking more like a 14-
year-old, actually, than a young man.) The ad promised
that if one used such-and-such ActiveX controls then one's
work could be done early and one could then have time to
"go out and play", spending the afternoon skateboarding
instead of working on boring software.

  But of course, there's now .Net for those people. :)

mayayana wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteCount me in.  Occassionally, I'll use a virtual grid, but for the most part I like
to have be as standalone as possible.

Show quote Hide quote Gosh Karl,

If you move up to a 21st Century OS though (WinXP+) you have the option of
using registration-free COM and you no longer need fear the goodness of
COM/ActiveX, the true strength of VB.

I'm not suggesting that zero-dependency programs don't offer benefits, but I
can't imagine why I should waste time trying to reinvent perfectly good
wheels either.  Often wheels that are truly round with good bearings, unlike
the caveman creation I might produce myself given limited time and
resources.

Bob Riemersma wrote:
I like to be in control of my own codebase. <shrug>

Eh? You re-wrote Windows?? ;)

MM

Hmmmm.  Considering the talent of some VB programmers, given the chance I
believe some could do a better job at various Windows interfaces/functions.
Not all of Windows, but some.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:50 -0500, "C Kevin Provance"
<BillMRapedMySh***@.netblows.ms> wrote:

Talent is one thing. Time is another. Who can invest his whole life in
recreating Windows? That is, his whole life, plus the lives of many
others. It would take MAN-YEARS of effort to recreate Windows. Digging
a five-acre field with a teaspoon would seem far less daunting.

MM

   You sound like just the guy who would appreciate my
new time-saving line of products. Act now and you can
get 50 disposable, pre-toothpasted toothbrushes for the
price of 39! Each brush has a scientifically pre-measured
glob of toothpaste already on the brush. When you're done,
just throw it away. No muss, no fuss, no tedious time lost
buying toothpaste or finding a place to store the tube.
(And who's got time to pick a flavor, for goodness sake?)

   Act now and you also get a .Net-inspired 100-pack of
pre-folded toilet paper sections at *n o  e x t r a  c o s t*.
The days of being forced to architect your own toilet paper
wad solutions are a thing of the past. These babies offer
instant deployment across your whole ... uh ... enterprise.

  But wait! That's not all. If your order is received in the
next 30 minutes you'll also receive our patented TV Remote
Deluxe Clicker Timer. It senses when an ad comes on TV
and automatically clicks to the next station. You'll never
have to lift your arm again! How much would that be worth
to you?

  But that's not all....

Show quoteHide quote

Colors in a picture box (vb6)
HOWTO Use WebBrowser Control to Open & Edit HTML File
Center Text using printer object
Treating NULL database values in classes and Form fields.
[VB6] Moving form when clicking and dragging picture box
possible problem with datatypes
Multiple clipboards?
Listview Column Selection
[VB6] supressing Microsoft HTML Object Library from launching additional windows
Take taskbar/quicklauch bars into account???