Hi there, I'm trying to use Igor's code inside a BHO and I am stuck. I've copied the CTestAPP code and all required files to my Project and I changed the part (inside CTestAPP) where it updates the Dialog to print a Debug statement with ATLTRACE instead. All the rest of the code is untouched. The BHO loads fine, and the NameSpace gets registered fine (inside my Project's InitInstance) but as soon as I browse an HTTP site I get a Debug Assertion in ProtocolImpl.inl "Unrecognized interface supported by target unknown" (inside QueryInterfaceDebug) Any ideas why? Anything special that shouldn't be done while implementing inside a BHO? Thanks for any help, Dan.
dranger003@gmail.com wrote: > I'm trying to use Igor's code inside a BHO and I am stuck. I've copied > the CTestAPP code and all required files to my Project and I changed > the part (inside CTestAPP) where it updates the Dialog to print a > Debug statement with ATLTRACE instead. All the rest of the code is > untouched. > > The BHO loads fine, and the NameSpace gets registered fine (inside my > Project's InitInstance) but as soon as I browse an HTTP site I get a > Debug Assertion in ProtocolImpl.inl "Unrecognized interface supported > by target unknown" (inside QueryInterfaceDebug) Yes, it's a known issue. See http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.inetsdk.programming.urlmonikers/browse_frm/thread/26d5b3d79ece7974 It's probably time to remove that assert, or make it conditional on some macro so it can be easily turned off. New interfaces keep cropping up with every IE release. -- With best wishes, Igor Tandetnik With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925
Thanks Igor. Also, I have been using the PassthroughAPPBeta package from your repository as it contained more recent code. What are the main differences with the original PassthroughAPP? Anything in the beta I shouldn't be using for a production environment?
dranger003@gmail.com wrote: > Also, I have been using the PassthroughAPPBeta package from your > repository as it contained more recent code. > What are the main differences with the original PassthroughAPP? There are certain circumstances where the former crashes and the latter does not (as far as I can tell). A short explanation can be found here: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.inetsdk.programming.urlmonikers/browse_frm/thread/7a4bcd67f5a3eb22/3387beb61190effd > Anything in the beta I shouldn't be using for a production > environment? It'll probably be in the Beta for a very long time - I pretty much stopped working on this project. Besides, the original version is not that much better tested than the "Beta" version. Use either at your own risk. I provide informal support here in the newsgroups, and I would gladly refund full purchase price in case you are not completely satisfied with the product for any reason. -- With best wishes, Igor Tandetnik With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925
I'm also glad to know you would provide full refund if I'm not satisfied.. :-) So far, I'm more than satisfied. This is great work you've done - and your support is just the same. Thanks again.
