PlausiblyDamp

Could you post the code here rather than as a link, especially as a link that doesn't seem to work.

The msdn link http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.services.protocols.soapextension.aspx gives you pretty much what you are after a a sample. You would need to open up the wsdl.exe generated proxy class and then add the attribute from the above sample to the generated proxy class.

Does the other PC with the same version of messenger installed work or is that also having problems?

Just about any container that can hold controls exposes them as a .Controls collection. If the cell only has a single control (the TextBox in your example) then Controls[0] will be the first and only control. If on the other hand there was more than one control in the cell then you would be able to use Controls[1] etc to refer to these other controls.

Does the other PC have the same version of Live Messenger installed or a different version? The COM interop stuff can be very fussy about versions of software prior to .Net 4. The interop.xxxxxxx.dll doesn't need to be registered on the target machine as it simply acts as a wrapper around the underlying COM component that should already be present and registered.

Does the other pc have live messenger installed? If you added a COM reference to the messenger library then this library (and dependencies) is going to be required on any PC that your app is installed to.

Just trying to understand what you are after.... Are you wanting to be able to load an image and then edit the image? Or have I missed the point?

The application could be doing something at a lower level to prevent itself being killed off; typically an AV product will attempt to prevent itself being terminated to prevent a virus from doing the same. Is there a reason you can't shut these executables down using a supported mechanism?

The application could be doing something at a lower level to prevent itself being killed off; typically an AV product will attempt to prevent itself being terminated to prevent a virus from doing the same. Is there a reason you can't shut these executables down using a supported mechanism?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b873y76a.aspx

Wouldn't it just be easier to use the .Split method instead of trying to split it yourself?

If you try executing the generated sql directly against the server does it take a comparable amount of time? It might be worth checking the indexes on the tables to see if they are on the correct fields but you find that instr and substr can prevent the database from really taking advantage of indexes anyway on those columns.

If you try executing the generated sql directly against the server does it take a comparable amount of time? It might be worth checking the indexes on the tables to see if they are on the correct fields but you find that instr and substr can prevent the database from really taking advantage of indexes anyway on those columns.

It shouldn't freeze the GUI using the Async call, I just tried it on my PC here and I did notice the line listBox1.Items.Add ("Finished" & e.UserState.ToString) was throwing a null reference exception due to UserState being null, but once I removed that part it ran just fine with no hanging of the UI in the slightest.

When you say it isn't working what exactly happens? Is it failing in any way or just not getting the results? Using HttpWebRequest might be slightly faster but probably not significantly so in comparison - the biggest factor is probably going to be the bandwidth between the server and client more than anything.

The attached project seems to be missing the avi.vb file - makes it kind of difficult to follow the project. When you create the video are you specifying a particular codec? If not you are going to be generating an uncompressed stream which would explain the large file size.

When you are saving the Image using BlurredImage.Save the first parameter can be any Stream derived class not just a FileStream. You could do something like Dim Filter As New AForge.Imaging.Filters.GaussianBlur(0.1, 4) Dim SourceImg As System.Drawing.Bitmap = AForge.Imaging.Image.FromFile("E:\Small.png") Dim BlurredImage As System.Drawing.Bitmap = Filter.Apply(SourceImg) Dim data() as Byte Dim Compressed As New System.IO.MemoryStream(data) BlurredImage.Save(Compressed, System.Drawing.Imaging.ImageFormat.Png) Me.BackgroundImage = Bitmap.FromStream(Compressed) which should work.

It looks as though CheckBox CBX1 = ((CheckBox)grid_add_contacts_list.Rows[rowindex].FindControl("cbk_edit_cprimary")); isn't returning a valid object, are you sure the control has that id and is present in the row?

Did you look at the various constructor overloads (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.drawing.icon.icon.aspx)? Using them you can specify which size to return, if you know it will have 3 or 4 sizes then simply ask for each in turn.

In the 2010 version it doesn't look as though you are actually handling the key down event at all, plus in the key up event you should be checking the argument passed into the event handler to see what key was pressed.

.Net's Icon class can probably do what you are after. If you look at the various constructors an Icon can be created from a resource stream and you can also specify your desired size - if the icon contains multiple resolutions then it will pick one based on your requested size.

Without actually seeing the data or what the unpacked representation should be it is going to be difficult for anyone to offer any real advice.

Are all these assemblies deployed at once or is there some sort of phased roll out of them? Is there any easy way to identify which assemblies are valid for a given date? In all honesty having 1000s of assemblies seems a strange situation to be in, it might help if you gave a bit more detail describing the problem / what you are trying to achieve.

In that case they are probably not actually dealing with XML but their own XML-like syntax. If they are determined to reinvent the wheel on this one rather than use an existing and established way to do things then they are creating work for everyone. I am assuming somewhere in the spec (or what passed for a spec) the client either requested or claimed to support xml - if they are doing it themselves and breaking on simple things like this then they probably have a whole load of other problems facing them (and you), plus they are technically not supporting xml and might even be in breach of the contract. Depending on what they are after you might be able to use a CDATA section, however if they are struggling with a simple character escape sequence then I wouldn't hold my breath on them supporting this at all.

Could you explain why they don't want this to be escaped? This is how xml works and the fact the character is escaped should be transparent to the application itself as the underlying parser should be dealing with this.