winXP | 🏁 Web based Windows XP desktop recreation | Frontend Framework library

Finally found the solution (thanks jdweng). Postgresql has two ways to export bytearray data. To enable the right one for me I executed the following command (on database server): ''' ALTER DATABASE your-db-name SET BYTEA_OUTPUT TO 'escape'; '''

You need to examine the error output in detail to determine what the problem is.

If we start from the end of the first error message:

If the ulterior motive for SetParent is to keep the dialog in front of the view then the following might work (or it might not, depending on UI specifics). If, however, the reason is to clip the dialog to the parent view, then this won't help, though it still attempts to explain why.

Main issue here is an inconsistency in how Windows applies visual styles to (descendents of) child windows, or rather does not do that. The issue is not confined to VC++ or MFC, and has been noted [1], [2], [3], [4] (the last link is an open case on dotnet/winforms but also references MFC). Because of this issue, re-parenting the dialog as a child of the view "loses" the theming.

One additional complication here is that the window in question is a dialog, and dialogs are owned windows. Just calling SetParent changes the parent of the dialog, but leaves the owner in place. This goes against the rule that A window can have a parent or an owner but not both. Also, SetParent requires that the style bits be updated to remove WS_POPUP and add WS_CHILD instead. However, neither clearing the owner nor fixing the style bits changes the styling behavior once the dialog is made a child of the view.

The alternative is to change the owner of the dialog, instead of its parent, in which case the visual styles do in fact get applied. This keeps the dialog in front of its owner in the Z order, though it does not clip it to the owner area. The caveat, however, is that the owner must be a popup or overlapped window, so it cannot be set to the view itself, which is a child window, but instead to its closest popup/overlapped ancestor. In UIs with a single top-level window, this often means the one and only main window.

Sample code is below, with some comments inlined, and the #if 0 part that's not working.

Assuming that findstr.exe resides in %SystemRoot%\System32 of your PE base OS, and the current working directory under which this script is running, holds your target .gho files, here's an example template you can use:

I used Custom Draw as Jonathan Potter said.

Here is one pitfall: while a current item changing, old item has CDIS_FOCUS and CDIS_SELECTED flags in pCustomDraw->nmcd.uItemState member, and new item doesn't have. So pCustomDraw->clrText = (pNMTVCD->nmcd.uItemState & CDIS_FOCUS) == CDIS_FOCUS) ? ... will works a little bit strange. I checked pCustomDraw->clrTextBk instead. But it can be broken when user used a custom theme.

I use this article and an applied code to build the example.

I solved it myself. I modified the approach using the JSON parsing logic and implementing a double for loop for: iterating the rows and increasing the counter for each project

Here is a start

protobuf-net v2 includes down-level targets for net20 and net35; protobuf-net v3 does not. For an in-depth discussion of why, please see this blog post. Could v3 hypothetically build against v2? Possibly, with suitable amounts of effort. The blog post discusses that in much more detail, though.

The readme.md in the latest version states that net20 / net35 can be targeted

Please can you provide me with a link to that, so I can get that clarified. I've checked, and I can't see that statement.

Furthermore from the source-code we can see that using protobuf-net with named pipes is still considered to be "experimental". Can there any statements be made how far this is from stable ?

The experimental named pipe basic RPC layer is entirely that: experimental; it is not considered stable, and I'll probably kill it in favour of gRPC (see also: protobuf-net.Grpc) unless I have significant reasons to add more effort. In particular, Microsoft are investing some effort into making in-process gRPC work, so it may be more pragmatic to just combine with those efforts. However! That is likely to be limited to .NET 5 (or possibly later), which doesn't help you if you're targeting .NET Framework 2.0.

Ultimately: I hate to break this to you, but: the old versions of .NET Framework are long since retired. Most library authors - and especially authors of free libraries - are unlikely to invest the significant effort required to properly support them.

reverse the values, the program is reading d as a unhexifying string you have to reverse the hex to fix this