This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: "Cygwin Apps" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:25:11 -0500
- Subject: RE: [SetupXP] The two styles for handling activation refusal
> > I cannot think of one. It exists soley to give OnActivate a "default return
> > code". It *can't* be called anywhere else, since in the general case,
> > OnAcceptActivation won't know if it needs to refuse activation until after
> > OnAccept is called.
> Hmm. My intention when I suggested a query method was for it to be
> called *instead* of OnActivate, and OnActivate only called if it
> returned true.
> Will doing that break anything?
> For clarity:
> if (OnAcceptActivate())
Well, my current code appears to work if changed to do that. But then
OnAcceptActivate() is equivalent to my original return value changes (i.e. just
leave OnActivate() empty and OnAcceptActivate() is your message handler).
I'm not sure that this whole thing doesn't set an ugly precedent. Do we do this
for *every* message coming down the pipe?
Gary R. Van Sickle