forum.vdsworld.com

LiquidCode · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 2:32 am Post subject:

Sweet. Looks good. We are on the way to VDS made extensions. Looks like I have something fun to do tomorrow (if I have time). Smile

LiquidCode · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject:

I have successfully converted my Update6.exe in Save-It to the new .VDSX format and it seems to be working great. Smile

cnodnarb · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject:

That's good to hear! Now is this for your personal use or is it something you're going to offer as a redistributable ;p

LiquidCode · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject:

That one is just for Save-It, but I am going to make one that is redistributable and I am working on updating VDSReg to be a VDSX as well.

LiquidCode · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 10:45 pm Post subject:

I am working on my VDSReg.vdsx and noticed that I need to enclose the window ID on "'s at the command line for it to work. Not sure why. I didn't need to when using VDS 5.

Run VDSReg.vdsx @chr(34)@winexists(~Edit1)@chr(34) ...

It works though.

cnodnarb · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject:

That's odd...is it because the return contains a %?

LiquidCode · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 11:25 pm Post subject:

I think so. I tried it with a class name (#MyClass) and it worked fine. I'm going to see if I can make a work around so the @chr(34) is not needed for the control ID within the VDSReg.vdsx

Edit [SOLVED]:
if I use @trim(%1) in the VDSReg.vdsx for the %1, it works.

cnodnarb · Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 12:44 am Post subject:

Nice. First person to ever use in a distributable!

cnodnarb · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:32 am Post subject:

Note about this RFC

Will be testing/updating. Tried to get this to work via @pipe() using several methods, none of which worked.

Reg entries to register vdsx type seem unneeded on modern systems, may even have been unneeded at the time of authoring.

The output extension may also be .dll

This should in theory have no impact on function.

cnodnarb · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:43 am Post subject:

Tested working with dll extension, methodology is sound.

cnodnarb · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:49 am Post subject:

First post updated for modern methodology.

cnodnarb · Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:33 pm Post subject:

Updated first post. Slicker than snot at this point.

cnodnarb · Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:40 pm Post subject:

Tested this method on XP - it worked. Apparently we could've done something like this long ago.

cnodnarb · Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:27 pm Post subject:

Updated to allow multiple dll's, and multiple instances of dll's (not that you need that).

cnodnarb · Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:32 pm Post subject:

Updated. Abstracted functions further into dsu.