|
Home > Archive > dBASE Programming > January 2007 > Error in Netsender.wfm in dUflp
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Error in Netsender.wfm in dUflp
|
|
|
| I am running into an error when running Netsender.wfm from the duflp. The error is - Data Type Mismatch expecting character - on line 1113. The code on that line is:
class::RunHidden("NET VIEW /DOMAIN:" + ;
rtrim(form.ComputerByDomain[i,1]) + " > " + ;
ComputerNames)
Anyone run into this problem and have a fix for it?
Many thanks for any help,
Rick
| |
| Frank J. Polan 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Rick
What version are you using? I just ran the version in dUFLP_P with no
errors, after remembering to start the Messenger Service on both
PCs<g>
Frank Polan
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:08:44 -0500, Rick <Sportman7@netzero.net>
wrote:
>I am running into an error when running Netsender.wfm from the duflp. The error is - Data Type Mismatch expecting character - on line 1113. The code on that line is:
>
> class::RunHidden("NET VIEW /DOMAIN:" + ;
> rtrim(form.ComputerByDomain[i,1]) + " > " + ;
> ComputerNames)
>
>Anyone run into this problem and have a fix for it?
>
>Many thanks for any help,
>Rick
| |
| Ken Mayer [dBVIPS] 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Frank J. Polan wrote:
> Rick
>
> What version are you using? I just ran the version in dUFLP_P with no
> errors, after remembering to start the Messenger Service on both
> PCs<g>
There's a new version of the dUFLP -- you might check that. I didn't
check any updates ...
Ken
--
/(Opinions expressed are purely my own, not those of dataBased
Intelligence, Inc.)/
*Ken Mayer* [dBVIPS]
/Golden Stag Productions/
dBASE at goldenstag dot net
http://www.goldenstag.net/dbase/dBASEBook.htm
http://www.goldenstag.net/GSP
http://www.goldenstag.net/dbase
| |
|
| Frank,
I used the version in duflpQ, but the date on the file is 9/26/05 so no recent changes have been made.
I had Messenger Service off on one machine. After turning it on, the form still gave the same error if another machine was not turned on on the network. If I turn on at least one other workstation, the form worked fine.
This will be a problem for my smaller clients that may run this not knowing if another user has there machine turned on.
Guess I could try a try/catch on line 1113, but it takes almost 3 minutes for the error message to appear during which nothing is happening on the screen. I should be able to pop something up in the form open to avoid the blank screen, but not sure how t
o, or if you can, handle the error on line 113 more gracefully. e.g., maybe the first check would be to determine if Messenger Service is on on the machine runnng the form. If yes, then I am hoping there is some way to intercept the error on line 1113 bu
t without wating 3 minutes.
Thanks for any ideas you may have on this,
Rick
Frank J. Polan Wrote:
> Rick
>
> What version are you using? I just ran the version in dUFLP_P with no
> errors, after remembering to start the Messenger Service on both
> PCs<g>
>
> Frank Polan
>
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:08:44 -0500, Rick <Sportman7@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Frank J. Polan 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Rick,
I can't check with more than 2 PCs until I get back to my office the
end of next week.
Here I only have 2 laptops - 1 Win XP Pro; 1 XP Home running on a
wireless network. Both have all service packs & updates and ZoneAlarms
Security Suite.
If I run netsender.wfm from the IDE with the Messenger Service stopped
on the XP Home PC there's a several second delay and then I get an
"Execution Error Your message........." alert box from the NetSender
Form
Frank Polan
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:13:39 -0500, Rick <Sportman7@netzero.net>
wrote:
>Frank,
>
>I used the version in duflpQ, but the date on the file is 9/26/05 so no recent changes have been made.
>
>I had Messenger Service off on one machine. After turning it on, the form still gave the same error if another machine was not turned on on the network. If I turn on at least one other workstation, the form worked fine.
>
>This will be a problem for my smaller clients that may run this not knowing if another user has there machine turned on.
>
>Guess I could try a try/catch on line 1113, but it takes almost 3 minutes for the error message to appear during which nothing is happening on the screen. I should be able to pop something up in the form open to avoid the blank screen, but not sure how
to, or if you can, handle the error on line 113 more gracefully. e.g., maybe the first check would be to determine if Messenger Service is on on the machine runnng the form. If yes, then I am hoping there is some way to intercept the error on line 1113 b
ut without wating 3 minutes.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Thanks for any ideas you may have on this,
>Rick
>
>Frank J. Polan Wrote:
>
| |
|
| Frank,
I did pretty much the same. Running in IDE, I tried with the power off to the only other PC on the network and got the message on line 1113. Same result if Messenger Service is turned off on the sending PC. With both PCs on and Messenger Service on, th
e message gets thru.
Thanks,
Rick
Frank J. Polan Wrote:
> Rick,
>
> I can't check with more than 2 PCs until I get back to my office the
> end of next week.
> Here I only have 2 laptops - 1 Win XP Pro; 1 XP Home running on a
> wireless network. Both have all service packs & updates and ZoneAlarms
> Security Suite.
>
> If I run netsender.wfm from the IDE with the Messenger Service stopped
> on the XP Home PC there's a several second delay and then I get an
> "Execution Error Your message........." alert box from the NetSender
> Form
>
> Frank Polan
>
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:13:39 -0500, Rick <Sportman7@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>
w to, or if you can, handle the error on line 113 more gracefully. e.g., maybe the first check would be to determine if Messenger Service is on on the machine runnng the form. If yes, then I am hoping there is some way to intercept the error on line 1113
but without wating 3 minutes.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| Marc Hamelin 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Unfortunately, no matter how much I try, I do not get this error when I run
it here at work. Our workstations are either Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP
Pro, and I can't get this error even when all their Messenger Service are
off... So maybe it's a Windows XP Home Edition problem.
But what I find even weirder about this problem is that you get the error on
a NET VIEW command execution. This command is used to get all the computers
listed on the network, not to send any messages to any of them, so it's
pretty weird that it starts to work correctly when the Messenger Service is
started on every computer. Did you try the NET VIEW command by itself in a
DOS prompt?
I did a search and I found that firewalls may sometimes block the NET VIEW
command, so maybe that's the cause of the problem, but it's just a guess,
really... Maybe when you turn on the Messenger Service, either Windows or
the firewall or whatever enables the use all the NET commands, and that
would be why it works in that particular instance.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298804
Marc Hamelin
| |
| Lysander 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Marc Hamelin schrieb:
> But what I find even weirder about this problem is that you get the error on
> a NET VIEW command execution. This command is used to get all the computers
> listed on the network, not to send any messages to any of them, so it's
> pretty weird that it starts to work correctly when the Messenger Service is
> started on every computer. Did you try the NET VIEW command by itself in a
> DOS prompt?
Just out of curiosity...
right-click on the network-connection you are using in this case, chose
"properties of the internet protocol" (could have another translation on
your system).
click "advanced" and check several things:
- LM Host lookup turned ON?
- NetBIOS turned ON?
Do that for all machines in your local P2P network and see if that makes
a change.
ciao,
André
| |
|
| Marc,
Thanks for checking in.
I completed tests again, using XP home on 2 p to p connected pcs. Runing netsender in the IDE, it works perfectly if both computers are on, but gives the error on line 1113 whenever one is turned off.
Tryng NET VIEW in dos command, with machine on works fine, with machine off, it freezes.
Maybe I could try a NET VIEW with a try/catch in the form open and report back a problem, but not sure if this would result in a long wait. I could put in a timer and if net view does not complete in x seconds, then report the problem.
What do you think?
Thanks again for any advice you can give,
Rick
Marc Hamelin Wrote:
> Unfortunately, no matter how much I try, I do not get this error when I run
> it here at work. Our workstations are either Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP
> Pro, and I can't get this error even when all their Messenger Service are
> off... So maybe it's a Windows XP Home Edition problem.
>
> But what I find even weirder about this problem is that you get the error on
> a NET VIEW command execution. This command is used to get all the computers
> listed on the network, not to send any messages to any of them, so it's
> pretty weird that it starts to work correctly when the Messenger Service is
> started on every computer. Did you try the NET VIEW command by itself in a
> DOS prompt?
>
> I did a search and I found that firewalls may sometimes block the NET VIEW
> command, so maybe that's the cause of the problem, but it's just a guess,
> really... Maybe when you turn on the Messenger Service, either Windows or
> the firewall or whatever enables the use all the NET commands, and that
> would be why it works in that particular instance.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298804
>
>
> Marc Hamelin
>
>
| |
| *Lysander* 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Rick schrieb:
> Maybe I could try a NET VIEW with a try/catch in the form open and report back a problem, but not sure if this would result in a long wait. I could put in a timer and if net view does not complete in x seconds, then report the problem.
> What do you think?
If I understand correctly, you do not want to have a routine for a
varying number of machines which are in-and-out-again from your network
frequently, but you KNOW which machines are in this network, and the
number and names of the machines are quite constant.
If that is correct, and you want to do it quick and dirty, do it REALLY
dirty 
Place a "signal" file in the "ALL USERS" application data folder of
every machine; txt-file or something like that.
try to open that file using the file-class.
If it does not work, the computer is off, most likely.
I suppose that this results in considerable shorter timeout, than using
netview within a try/catch.
ciao,
André
| |
|
| Marc,
With a little more patience, I found that NET VIEW indicates the message "System error 6118 has occurred. The list of servers for this workgroup is not available." when the second pc is turned off.
Not sure if this would help come up with a solutoin tho.
Thanks,
Rick
Marc Hamelin Wrote:
> Unfortunately, no matter how much I try, I do not get this error when I run
> it here at work. Our workstations are either Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP
> Pro, and I can't get this error even when all their Messenger Service are
> off... So maybe it's a Windows XP Home Edition problem.
>
> But what I find even weirder about this problem is that you get the error on
> a NET VIEW command execution. This command is used to get all the computers
> listed on the network, not to send any messages to any of them, so it's
> pretty weird that it starts to work correctly when the Messenger Service is
> started on every computer. Did you try the NET VIEW command by itself in a
> DOS prompt?
>
> I did a search and I found that firewalls may sometimes block the NET VIEW
> command, so maybe that's the cause of the problem, but it's just a guess,
> really... Maybe when you turn on the Messenger Service, either Windows or
> the firewall or whatever enables the use all the NET commands, and that
> would be why it works in that particular instance.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298804
>
>
> Marc Hamelin
>
>
| |
|
| Andre,
That is a clever idea. It would require some customization for each installation of the app, tho. i.e., would need to have the install program run net view to get the names of all workstations and store them, plus have some way to update this list when
a new machine is added to the network. Would also need to require the client make sure all workstations are turned on when the install takes place so net view can get the info.
Might be better to see if netsender can handle the problem when workstations are turned off. Maybe Marc has an idea on this. Meanwhile, I will play around with net view to see what I can come up with to avoid the long delay when netsender is run and all
other workstations are off.
Thanks,
Rick
*Lysander* Wrote:
> Rick schrieb:
>
>
> If I understand correctly, you do not want to have a routine for a
> varying number of machines which are in-and-out-again from your network
> frequently, but you KNOW which machines are in this network, and the
> number and names of the machines are quite constant.
>
> If that is correct, and you want to do it quick and dirty, do it REALLY
> dirty
>
> Place a "signal" file in the "ALL USERS" application data folder of
> every machine; txt-file or something like that.
>
> try to open that file using the file-class.
> If it does not work, the computer is off, most likely.
>
> I suppose that this results in considerable shorter timeout, than using
> netview within a try/catch.
>
> ciao,
> André
>
>
| |
| *Lysander* 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Rick schrieb:
> Andre,
>
> That is a clever idea. It would require some customization for each installation of the app, tho. i.e., would need to have the install program run net view to get the names of all workstations and store them, plus have some way to update this list whe
n a new machine is added to the network. Would also need to require the client make sure all workstations are turned on when the install takes place so net view can get the info.
>
> Might be better to see if netsender can handle the problem when workstations are turned off. Maybe Marc has an idea on this. Meanwhile, I will play around with net view to see what I can come up with to avoid the long delay when netsender is run and al
l other workstations are off.
nowadays, by the way, there is _NO_ excuse of any kind anymore, to use
P2P in anything else but a REAL home network with 2 or 3 PCs.
Tell your customers/friends to get the latest *free* edition of TOFKAN
(The OS formerly known as Netware *g*).
Ask some really easy questions and the installer will set up a lean -
dedicated! - server for your network.
That really is a ZERO dollar : ZERO trouble solution to get rid off all
the pain with P2P.
Runs even on very old machines with little RAM.
| |
| Frank J. Polan 2007-01-09, 1:31 am |
| Rick,
It might be something in your setup. I tested on a similar PC setup -
XP Pro to XP Home, with the same version of netsender.wfm and don't
get that error. The screen only shows the destination PC if it's
turned on. If the destination is on but isn't running the Messenger
Service I get an error from the OS - not netsender.wfm
Frank Polan
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:49:40 -0500, Rick <Sportman7@netzero.net>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Marc,
>
>With a little more patience, I found that NET VIEW indicates the message "System error 6118 has occurred. The list of servers for this workgroup is not available." when the second pc is turned off.
>
>Not sure if this would help come up with a solutoin tho.
>
>Thanks,
>Rick
>
>Marc Hamelin Wrote:
>
| |
| Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] 2007-01-13, 1:14 pm |
| In article <pGpOXXEMHHA.1844@news-server>, nobody@nowhere.com says...
> Rick schrieb:
stallation of the app, tho. i.e., would need to have the install program r=
un net view to get the names of all workstations and store them, plus have =
some way to update this list when a new machine is added to the network. W=
ould also need to require the client make sure=20
all workstations are turned on when the install takes place so net view can=
get the info.[vbcol=seagreen]
tions are turned off. Maybe Marc has an idea on this. Meanwhile, I will pl=
ay around with net view to see what I can come up with to avoid the long de=
lay when netsender is run and all other workstations are off.[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
> nowadays, by the way, there is _NO_ excuse of any kind anymore, to use=20
> P2P in anything else but a REAL home network with 2 or 3 PCs.
>=20
> Tell your customers/friends to get the latest *free* edition of TOFKAN=20
> (The OS formerly known as Netware *g*).
>=20
> Ask some really easy questions and the installer will set up a lean -=20
> dedicated! - server for your network.
>=20
> That really is a ZERO dollar : ZERO trouble solution to get rid off all=
=20
> the pain with P2P.
>=20
> Runs even on very old machines with little RAM.
Andr=E9,
Is TOFKAN the correct name? I can't seem to find it. I would be=20
interestd in learning more about it. Thanks!
--=20
Geoff Wass [dBVIPS]
Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec, Canada
..|.|.| dBASE info at http://geocities.com/geoff_wass |.|.|.
..|.|.| ---------------------------------------------------------- |.|.|.
..|.|.| IT Consultant http://Geoff_Wass.com |.|.|.
| |
| Lysander 2007-01-15, 7:20 am |
| Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] schrieb:
> Is TOFKAN the correct name? I can't seem to find it. I would be
> interestd in learning more about it. Thanks!
It was a joke, probably not a good one, excuse me, please.
You might have heard about TAFKAP. That's the artist "Prince" who had a
slight disagreement with his record label and was not allowed to sell
records by the name of "Prince" for a time.
So he called himself "LoveSign" or "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince
= TAFKAP"
Suse Linux basically became a really good variant of Linux for
enterprises and businesses, where all other Linux-versions still are too
much oriented to techno-freaks
That change with Suse Linux - for better or worse - came when they got
acquired by Novell.
The general tendency became clear already a long time ago. Novell made
their latest NetWare (6.x) versions quite alike to Linux and also
implemented some Linux technologies.
That's why Suse Linux sometimes is referred to as "The OS Formerly Known
As NetWare".
Fact is: you can take an old machine which you would not use as a client
machine anymore, place the Suse CDs (or 1 DVD) into the drive, choose a
pre-installation environment optimized for file-server and there you go:
dedicated file server in your network, even if your network is only 2 or
3 PCs.
Cost: ZERO (if you download the system without chosing any support) PLUS
your time.
Don't have it in my network, but saw the complete process when assisting
a friend of mine in his company.
regards,
André
| |
| Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] 2007-01-17, 1:26 am |
| In article <j$X$KBIOHHA.1528@news-server>, nobody@nowhere.de says...
> Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] schrieb:
>=20
>=20
> It was a joke, probably not a good one, excuse me, please.
>=20
> You might have heard about TAFKAP. That's the artist "Prince" who had a=
=20
> slight disagreement with his record label and was not allowed to sell=20
> records by the name of "Prince" for a time.
> So he called himself "LoveSign" or "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince=
=20
> =3D TAFKAP"
>=20
> Suse Linux basically became a really good variant of Linux for=20
> enterprises and businesses, where all other Linux-versions still are too=
=20
> much oriented to techno-freaks
>=20
> That change with Suse Linux - for better or worse - came when they got=20
> acquired by Novell.
>=20
> The general tendency became clear already a long time ago. Novell made=20
> their latest NetWare (6.x) versions quite alike to Linux and also=20
> implemented some Linux technologies.
>=20
> That's why Suse Linux sometimes is referred to as "The OS Formerly Known=
=20
> As NetWare".
>=20
> Fact is: you can take an old machine which you would not use as a client=
=20
> machine anymore, place the Suse CDs (or 1 DVD) into the drive, choose a=
=20
> pre-installation environment optimized for file-server and there you go:=
=20
> dedicated file server in your network, even if your network is only 2 or=
=20
> 3 PCs.
> Cost: ZERO (if you download the system without chosing any support) PLUS=
=20
> your time.
>=20
> Don't have it in my network, but saw the complete process when assisting=
=20
> a friend of mine in his company.
>=20
> regards,
> Andr=E9
Andr=E9, Andr=E9, Andr=E9, <g>
Now that makes sense! Sorry, I did not catch the joke at all. I guess I=20
have had a sheltered life. However, Suse Linux is something I have heard=20
about and can find (even if I have not used it before). It will be=20
something I keep in mind for the future. I don't have an extra machine=20
to try it one right now, but I will look into in the mean time in case=20
that changes. Thank-you for the explanation.
Again, I'm sorry I didn't catch your joke. I promise to laugh at the=20
next one, no matter how bad it might be. <g>
--=20
Geoff Wass [dBVIPS]
Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec, Canada
..|.|.| dBASE info at http://geocities.com/geoff_wass |.|.|.
..|.|.| ---------------------------------------------------------- |.|.|.
..|.|.| IT Consultant http://Geoff_Wass.com |.|.|.
| |
| Lysander 2007-01-17, 7:18 am |
| Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] schrieb:
> However, Suse Linux is something I have heard
> about and can find (even if I have not used it before). It will be
> something I keep in mind for the future. I don't have an extra machine
> to try it one right now, but I will look into in the mean time in case
> that changes. Thank-you for the explanation.
You know, I used to be quite a respectable DOS-programmer some 12 years
ago, but meanwhile I am a poor slave to the mouse
That's the only explanation I have for not being too deeply into any
Linux flavour.
The SUSE editions are already much more to my gusto, because they just
show so much understanding for mouse-pushers like me
Seriously, when a friend invited me to help him installing SUSE in his
company network, I was impressed how easy it is to set up a good working
file server for a windows-client-network on a Pentium III 800 with 256
MB RAM.
Nobody should do Peer-2-Peer anymore, really.
ciao,
André
| |
| Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] 2007-01-18, 1:25 am |
| In article <8$PMF$iOHHA.1528@news-server>, nobody@nowhere.de says...
> Geoff Wass [dBVIPS] schrieb:
=20[vbcol=seagreen]
=20[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
> You know, I used to be quite a respectable DOS-programmer some 12 years=
=20
> ago, but meanwhile I am a poor slave to the mouse
>=20
> That's the only explanation I have for not being too deeply into any=20
> Linux flavour.
>=20
> The SUSE editions are already much more to my gusto, because they just=20
> show so much understanding for mouse-pushers like me
>=20
> Seriously, when a friend invited me to help him installing SUSE in his=20
> company network, I was impressed how easy it is to set up a good working=
=20
> file server for a windows-client-network on a Pentium III 800 with 256=20
> MB RAM.
>=20
> Nobody should do Peer-2-Peer anymore, really.
>=20
> ciao,
> Andr=E9
Andr=E9,
You have me convinced! I'm a mouse pusher, too. I haven't really touched=20
Unix or its cousins since I was in university (and I am not saying how=20
long ago that was!). I used peered over the shoulder of one or two=20
colleagues at my last job and was curious to give it a try.
--=20
Geoff Wass [dBVIPS]
Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec, Canada
..|.|.| dBASE info at http://geocities.com/geoff_wass |.|.|.
..|.|.| ---------------------------------------------------------- |.|.|.
..|.|.| IT Consultant http://Geoff_Wass.com |.|.|.
|
|
|
|
|