Codejock Developer Community : Codejock .NET? http://forum.codejock.com/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Wed, 13 May 2026 19:44:42 +0000 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:49:52 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.04 360 forum.codejock.com/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=4667 <![CDATA[Codejock Developer Community]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_images/codejock-logo.gif http://forum.codejock.com/ <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : Krenshau wrote:I don&#039;t...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23478&title=codejock-net#23478 Author: ABuenger
Subject: 4667
Posted: 06 June 2007 at 6:49pm

Originally posted by Krenshau Krenshau wrote:

I don't think WPF will run on XP, will it?


It does, .NET 3.0 can be installed on XP, Server 2003 and Vista (pre-installed).

A WinForms toolkit wouldn't make sense in my eyes, WinForms was nothing more than a managed wrapper around the common controls and HWND based controls.

WPF does have some advantages. A DirectX based toolkit which integrates well with WPF  might be cool.

]]> Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:49:52 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23478&title=codejock-net#23478 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : I don&#039;t think WPF will run...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23472&title=codejock-net#23472 Author: Krenshau
Subject: 4667
Posted: 06 June 2007 at 3:35pm

I don't think WPF will run on XP, will it?

]]> Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:35:01 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23472&title=codejock-net#23472 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : SuperMario wrote:Actually...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23123&title=codejock-net#23123 Author: ABuenger
Subject: 4667
Posted: 21 May 2007 at 11:50am

Originally posted by SuperMario SuperMario wrote:

Actually TaskPanel and ShortcutBar will be coming out very soon and all other components are currently in development.


Are they written in C# or C++/CLI? For WinForms or WPF?

]]> Mon, 21 May 2007 11:50:45 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23123&title=codejock-net#23123 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : apuhjee wrote:Ben - I&#039;m...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23115&title=codejock-net#23115 Author: SuperMario
Subject: 4667
Posted: 21 May 2007 at 9:57am

Originally posted by apuhjee apuhjee wrote:

Ben -
I'm fearing that this is a hopeless dream.  Codejock's programmer(s) is/are solidly rooted in Win32/MFC.  Codejock, as a company, caters to and is probably kept alive by the dwindling VB6 crowd.  Tutorials, Samples, and Documentation focus on VB6.  The C# samples are auto-generated by a tool called Instant C#... resulting in a 7.0 sample that must be auto-converted yet again by Visual Studio 2005 in order to bring things into the year 2007.  The auto-generated code is crap - RibbonSample actually has a property being called as if it were a function!!  Frustration is an understatement.
 
We've evaluated DotNetBar and NetAdvantage.  Maybe it's just that we've gotten used to the simple Codejock API... but these other suites are plain obtuse.
 
Finally - there's a performance issue.  Even with all of the interop, the visual components written in native c++/mfc seem to perform much better than visual components written in the .NET framework... Maybe Codejock can step up and raise the bar, though. 
 
We've been with this suite for the past couple of years, but like you mention - the first product with Codejock's features, quality, and support that is made BY .NET PROGRAMMERS / FOR .NET PROGRAMMERS will have our cash.  And it will be a shame if that company is not Codejock itself.
 
Regards ~ jp


It is not a helpless dream.  Actually TaskPanel and ShortcutBar will be coming out very soon and all other components are currently in development.

For .NET samples, one sample is created from scratch in VS2002 in C# or VB.NET.  Then to save time that one sample is converted to the other language.  They must be created in VS2002 so that all users can open them.
]]> Mon, 21 May 2007 09:57:24 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23115&title=codejock-net#23115 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : I don&#039;t think that it makes...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23046&title=codejock-net#23046 Author: ABuenger
Subject: 4667
Posted: 18 May 2007 at 3:44pm

I don't think that it makes sense to rewrite the Toolkit for WinForms. The current Toolkit serves the MFC, VB6 and WinForms market pretty well. WinForms is also HWND based so there is no disadvantage.

Also while I agree that the VB6 usage is dwindling there is still a huge customer base. Many also continue to use MFC over WinForms for various reasons. The MFC controls from Codejock perform way better than anything else on the market, which is also the reason why I personally don't use WinForms at all.

I guess there is a market for MFC controls for at least the next 3 or 5 years.

WPF is a whole different story and I hope that Codejock will serve this market in the future too.

]]> Fri, 18 May 2007 15:44:09 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23046&title=codejock-net#23046 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : Ben - I&#039;m fearing that this...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23044&title=codejock-net#23044 Author: apuhjee
Subject: 4667
Posted: 18 May 2007 at 1:11pm

Ben -
I'm fearing that this is a hopeless dream.  Codejock's programmer(s) is/are solidly rooted in Win32/MFC.  Codejock, as a company, caters to and is probably kept alive by the dwindling VB6 crowd.  Tutorials, Samples, and Documentation focus on VB6.  The C# samples are auto-generated by a tool called Instant C#... resulting in a 7.0 sample that must be auto-converted yet again by Visual Studio 2005 in order to bring things into the year 2007.  The auto-generated code is crap - RibbonSample actually has a property being called as if it were a function!!  Frustration is an understatement.
 
We've evaluated DotNetBar and NetAdvantage.  Maybe it's just that we've gotten used to the simple Codejock API... but these other suites are plain obtuse.
 
Finally - there's a performance issue.  Even with all of the interop, the visual components written in native c++/mfc seem to perform much better than visual components written in the .NET framework... Maybe Codejock can step up and raise the bar, though. 
 
We've been with this suite for the past couple of years, but like you mention - the first product with Codejock's features, quality, and support that is made BY .NET PROGRAMMERS / FOR .NET PROGRAMMERS will have our cash.  And it will be a shame if that company is not Codejock itself.
 
Regards ~ jp
]]> Fri, 18 May 2007 13:11:22 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=23044&title=codejock-net#23044 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : Sorry to go back to the original...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22694&title=codejock-net#22694 Author: Krenshau
Subject: 4667
Posted: 09 May 2007 at 12:26am

Sorry to go back to the original topic of this (old) thread, but I really hope Codejock comes out with some managed code soon, preferably in .NET 2.0. I hate to say it, but if I were to find a company that offered a fully managed solution in .NET 2.0, I would switch. Marshaling back and forth with COM interop is for the birds. Times are changing, gotta keep up to make money. I have subscribed to codejock for three or four years, and I would like to stay, but managed code is very important to me and my work, now.]]> Wed, 09 May 2007 00:26:34 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22694&title=codejock-net#22694 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : haraldradi wrote:After moving...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22412&title=codejock-net#22412 Author: apuhjee
Subject: 4667
Posted: 27 April 2007 at 11:04am

Originally posted by haraldradi haraldradi wrote:

After moving the ApplyWindow() call from OnVisibleChanged() to OnLoad() I also don't see any flicker for this case.
 
As I suspected, this not only did this not fix the problem - it made it worse by not skinning the mdi child forms at all.  It would be odd for either Mike or Oleg to put this code in such a strange place for no reason.  I also suspect that this had a lot to do with why they originally didn't think it was possible for the skin framework to work with .NET period.
 
Purhaps you could post some example code that you have working?
 
Originally posted by haraldradi haraldradi wrote:

Ever tried to set the DoubleBuffered property to true
 
I've attached an example of what I'm talking about. When you launch this app, you can literally see the buttons paint one at a time (though very quickly).  Double buffering on the form makes no difference.  I'm looking for some sort of event or indicator letting me know what a form is completely initialized and ready to be drawn to the screen.  Something that would allow the following:
 
1) create new form()
2) set visible = false
3) show form
4) receive notification that form is fully initialized
5) set visible = true
 
Cheers ~ Jason
 
uploads/20070427_110307_ButtonForm.rar
]]> Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:04:06 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22412&title=codejock-net#22412 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : apuhjee wrote:Thanks so much...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22369&title=codejock-net#22369 Author: haraldradi
Subject: 4667
Posted: 26 April 2007 at 6:56pm

Originally posted by apuhjee apuhjee wrote:

Thanks so much Harald. That did, in fact, work.


The cleanest solution for the above problem would be to add the SkinFramework instance to a form that will never be shown, e.g.

skinFramework.BeginInit();
new Form().Controls.Add(skinFramework);
skinFramework.EndInit();

This way you won't see any flicker without having to modify the Dispose method.

Originally posted by apuhjee apuhjee wrote:


Would you also have a solution for when forms are first being created? In SkinMDISample, forms first appear unskinned for a brief moment.


After moving the ApplyWindow() call from OnVisibleChanged() to OnLoad() I also don't see any flicker for this case.

Originally posted by apuhjee apuhjee wrote:


This leads me to a broader question - one that has always bothered me with .NET forms. Is there a way to ensure that a form is fully created with all initialization performed before displaying it on the screen?? It always seems to me that forms are drawing themselves component-by-component when they are first displayed.


Ever tried to set the DoubleBuffered property to true?

good luck,
harald
]]> Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:56:03 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22369&title=codejock-net#22369 <![CDATA[Codejock .NET? : Thanks so much Harald. That did,...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22362&title=codejock-net#22362 Author: apuhjee
Subject: 4667
Posted: 26 April 2007 at 11:41am

Thanks so much Harald. That did, in fact, work.

Would you also have a solution for when forms are first being created? In SkinMDISample, forms first appear unskinned for a brief moment.

This leads me to a broader question - one that has always bothered me with .NET forms. Is there a way to ensure that a form is fully created with all initialization performed before displaying it on the screen?? It always seems to me that forms are drawing themselves component-by-component when they are first displayed.

Regards ~ jp]]> Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:41:27 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4667&PID=22362&title=codejock-net#22362