From: Divye K. <div...@gm...> - 2008-09-02 18:41:10
|
Hello all, I've just added a dispatch_table example to the repository. Please have a look at the code and suggest any improvements. While testing this example, I came across an oddity. I am using the same functions as the http_client example. However, when I try to run dispatch_table.exe, I need to provide it elevated privileges on Vista. The same is not needed for http_client.exe. Why so? Any ideas? Divye -- An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) My official web site: http://people.iitr.ernet.in/shp/061305/ Webmaster: http://www.drkapoorsclinic.com Blog: http://divyekapoor.blogspot.com |
From: K. G. <kim...@gm...> - 2008-09-02 20:15:36
|
Hi Divye, On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 20:41, Divye Kapoor <div...@gm...> wrote: > Hello all, > I've just added a dispatch_table example to the repository. Please have a > look at the code and suggest any improvements. > > While testing this example, I came across an oddity. I am using the same > functions as the http_client example. However, when I try to run > dispatch_table.exe, I need to provide it elevated privileges on Vista. The > same is not needed for http_client.exe. Why so? Any ideas? The .exe name is probably triggering one of the UAC heuristics; the OS checks the filename of every launched executable, looking for keywords that give it away as an installer. Apparently "patch" is one of the trigger words [1], so "dis*patch*_table.exe" is incorrectly classified as requiring elevation. Best bet is probably to change the name of the .cpp file and/or .exe. The only alternative I know of is to add a UAC manifest either embedded or side-by-side, but that complicates build and deployment significantly, compared to the current... - Kim [1] http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1613234&SiteID=1 |
From: Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...> - 2008-09-03 05:41:56
|
Hi Divye, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Divye Kapoor <div...@gm...> wrote: > Hello all, > I've just added a dispatch_table example to the repository. Please have a > look at the code and suggest any improvements. > Sweet! Which branch did you put it in? > While testing this example, I came across an oddity. I am using the same > functions as the http_client example. However, when I try to run > dispatch_table.exe, I need to provide it elevated privileges on Vista. The > same is not needed for http_client.exe. Why so? Any ideas? > I think it's because you're using Vista... Try it in Linux instead. :P But seriously, I think this is not something we might need to worry about. If it works even with elevation, then I think that's good enough for me. :) -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc. |
From: Divye K. <div...@gm...> - 2008-09-03 06:20:52
|
Hi Dean, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm... > wrote: > Hi Divye, > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Divye Kapoor <div...@gm...> > wrote: > > Hello all, > > I've just added a dispatch_table example to the repository. Please > have a > > look at the code and suggest any improvements. > > > > Sweet! Which branch did you put it in? > http_integration branch -> libs\network\example > > While testing this example, I came across an oddity. I am using the same > > functions as the http_client example. However, when I try to run > > dispatch_table.exe, I need to provide it elevated privileges on Vista. > The > > same is not needed for http_client.exe. Why so? Any ideas? > > > > I think it's because you're using Vista... Try it in Linux instead. :P > Maybe I really should ;-) > > But seriously, I think this is not something we might need to worry > about. If it works even with elevation, then I think that's good > enough for me. :) > Same here. :-) Divye -- An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) My official web site: http://people.iitr.ernet.in/shp/061305/ Webmaster: http://www.drkapoorsclinic.com Blog: http://divyekapoor.blogspot.com |
From: Divye K. <div...@gm...> - 2008-09-03 06:26:19
|
Hi Kim, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...> wrote: > The .exe name is probably triggering one of the UAC heuristics; the OS > checks the filename of every launched executable, looking for keywords > that give it away as an installer. Apparently "patch" is one of the > trigger words [1], so "dis*patch*_table.exe" is incorrectly classified > as requiring elevation. > You're absolutely right. Changing the name of the executable removed the need of the UAC elevation request. Thanks :-D > > Best bet is probably to change the name of the .cpp file and/or .exe. > The only alternative I know of is to add a UAC manifest either > embedded or side-by-side, but that complicates build and deployment > significantly, compared to the current... > Any suggestions for alternative names? Divye -- An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) My official web site: http://people.iitr.ernet.in/shp/061305/ Webmaster: http://www.drkapoorsclinic.com Blog: http://divyekapoor.blogspot.com |
From: K. G. <kim...@gm...> - 2008-09-03 06:45:22
|
Hi Divye, On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 08:26, Divye Kapoor <div...@gm...> wrote: > > Any suggestions for alternative names? Hmm, that's hard... Some wise man said at one point to name things after what problem they solve, not after how they do it (paraphrased :) -- maybe that's a lead...? dynamic_methods? datadriven_methods? method_table? I don't have any obvious winners :) - Kim |