I'm new to IntraWeb and have a problem.
In order to implement a Login Form, i stored Datasets in the Usersession.
But when it comes to access the Datasets i get an Access Violation Error.
I figured out, that the Useresession is not created. Now i'm a bit confused, because in the Intraweb Documentary it is said, that the Usersession is created automatically by the ServerController.
I access (respectively want to) the Dataset like this
UserSession.Dataset.open;
I use the IntraWeb Trial included in Rad Studio XE5. May that be the Problem?
In case, that this is not the Problem, how can i create a Usersession manually?
Thank you very much
[Edit 13.4.16]
The problem was the Evaluation Version I used. After installing the Full Version my problem vanished. They changed their Usersession.create procedure by adding another Parameter. So make sure you use the actual Version if u have the same Problem:
Thanks for all the responses
You need to create the 'data' inside session
procedure TIWServerController.IWServerControllerBaseNewSession(
ASession: TIWApplication; var VMainForm: TIWAppForm);
begin
ASession.Data := TUserSession.Create;
end;
be aware that in this example
TUserSession
is an user defined class
type
TUserSession = class
public
UserCount: Integer;
end;
take a look at this tutorial which explains how the sessions management is done in IW - http://etutorials.org/Programming/mastering+delphi+7/Part+IV+Delphi+the+Internet+and+a+.NET+Preview/Chapter+21+Web+Programming+with+IntraWeb/Building+IntraWeb+Applications/
or consult the technical documentation provided by atozed.
I tried adding just a comment, apparently I need more points for that.
The answer will be found if you go into the response given by RBA, but here is the short form:
IW does create and manage the user session automatically. The TIWUserSession, however, is only your part of that. In order to have your own data in the session, .Create the TIWUserSession and add it as the .Data of the session. In IWServerControllerBaseNewSession do this with:
ASession.Data := TIWUserSession.Create(nil, ASession);
Note that the ASession parameter of the procedure is the session managed by IW.
In order to access your TIWUserSession, create a procedure in ServerController:
function UserSession: TIWUserSession;
begin
Result := TIWUserSession(WebApplication.Data);
end;
Expose that procedure in the interface section.
Dan
It occurred to me that we might be "solving the wrong problem".
You indicated that this occurred when you were implementing a login form. You also indicated that a break set in WServerControllerBaseNewSession() did not hit.
In ServerController, do you have "AuthBeforeNewSession" set to True? If so, set it to False and see if the behavior changes.
Dan
Related
I wanted to find out if anyone knows how to use the capabilities property of the Indy class TIdIMAP4? Its documentation appears to be the minimal auto-generated documentation that does not describe it's purpose or usage at all.
So I wrote some code like so (connection is already open at this poing)
if IMAP.Capabilities.IndexOf('MOVE')<>-1 then begin
IMAP.SendCmd(...);
end;
However, when this didn't seem to be working, I started investigating and found IMAP.Capabilities was an empty string list. I know capabilities are sent by the server on connect, without requesting them, but they appear not to be automatically populated? Am I wrong in thinking that the capabilities list should have been filled in simply by connecting?
Or is there some other command I have to call first? The Capability command looks promising, except that that method appears to store the results in a user-provided string list, so I'm slightly skeptical the string list in IMAP.Capabilities will be magically filled in from this (and if that were the case, why do I have to provide an empty list?) Edit: It appears Capability is overloaded and there's a no-arg version of it. However, I'm still seeing a blank capability list after calling that.
I decided to play with the other overloaded version of Capability where you provide a stringlist to the capability function. This did not return an empty list. I'm suspicious the other method was not working due to some type of variable scope issue, so this is really only a partial answer.
Using Capability in this manner did work:
var
capas : TStrings;
begin
capas := TStringList.Create;
IMAP.Capability(capas);
if (capas.IndexOf('UIDPLUS')<>-1) then
IMAP.SendCmd('UID EXPUNGE '+uidList.commaText);
capas.free;
end;
I've added some code to my delphi project to interact with the registry, using some tutorials I found online to guide my effort. Every example I've seen seems to use this structure for their registry access:
var
Registry: TRegistry;
begin
try
Registry := TRegistry.Create;
//additional code to access and use the registry object could go here
finally
Registry.Free;
end;
But when I implement my code following that structure, I am getting a warning that my variable Registry may not have been initialized on the line where I free the TRegistry object.
So, I'm wondering whether the examples I've found are just wrong on the right way to access the registry. Should I be calling Free on my TRegistry object regardless of whether the Create succeeeds, and just ignore the warning? Should, instead, my try/finally block only surround the code after the successful constructor call, but not wrap the create call? Something else?
In your code, if TRegistry.Create raises an exception then the Registry variable will not be assigned. And thus the finally will attempt to access an uninitialized variable.
The correct way to write the code is to make sure that the variable is assigned before you enter the try/finally block.
Registry := TRegistry.Create;
try
//additional code to access and use the registry object could go here
finally
Registry.Free;
end;
This is the most fundamental lifetime management pattern in Delphi coding and you should commit it deeply to muscle memory.
Note that if the constructor fails, then it will tidy up the partially constructed object before propagating the exception. The new object reference, Registry in this code, is only assigned if the constructor completes successfully.
I would hope that the examples you found were in fact written as per my code above and you somehow transcribed them incorrectly. If they are written as per the question, then they are clearly in error.
I'm asking this because I'm out of good ideas...hoping for someone else's fresh perspective.
I have a user running our 32-bit Delphi application (compiled with BDS 2006) on a Windows 7 64-bit system. Our software was "working fine" until a couple weeks ago. Now suddenly it isn't: it throws an Access Violation while initializing (instancing objects).
We've had him reinstall all our software--starting all over from scratch. Same AV error. We disabled his anti-virus software; same error.
Our stack tracing code (madExcept) for some reason wasn't able to provide a stack trace to the line of the error, so we've sent a couple error logging versions for the user to install and run, to isolate the line which generates the error...
Turns out, it's a line which instances a simple TStringList descendant (there's no overridden Create constructor, etc.--basically the Create is just instancing a TStringList which has a few custom methods associated with the descendant class.)
I'm tempted to send the user yet another test .EXE; one which just instances a plain-vanilla TStringList, to see what happens. But at this point I feel like I'm flailing at windmills, and risk wearing out the user's patience if I send too many more "things to try".
Any fresh ideas on a better approach to debugging this user's problem? (I don't like bailing out on a user's problems...those tend to be the ones which, if ignored, suddenly become an epidemic that 5 other users suddenly "find".)
EDIT, as Lasse requested:
procedure T_fmMain.AfterConstruction;
begin
inherited;
//Logging shows that we return from the Inherited call above,
//then AV in the following line...
FActionList := TAActionList.Create;
...other code here...
end;
And here's the definition of the object being created...
type
TAActionList = class(TStringList)
private
FShadowList: TStringList; //UPPERCASE shadow list
FIsDataLoaded : boolean;
public
procedure AfterConstruction; override;
procedure BeforeDestruction; override;
procedure DataLoaded;
function Add(const S: string): Integer; override;
procedure Delete(Index : integer); override;
function IndexOf(const S : string) : Integer; override;
end;
implementation
procedure TAActionList.AfterConstruction;
begin
Sorted := False; //until we're done loading
FShadowList := TStringList.Create;
end;
I hate these kind of problems, but I reckon you should focus on what's happening recently BEFORE the object tries to get constructed.
The symptoms you describe sound like typical heap corruption, so maybe you have something like...
An array being written to outside bounds? (turn bounds checking on, if you have it off)
Code trying to access an object which has been deleted?
Since my answer above, you've posted code snippets. This does raise a couple of possible issues that I can see.
a: AfterConstruction vs. modified constructor:
As others have mentioned, using AfterConstruction in this way is at best not idiomatic. I don't think it's truly "wrong", but it's a possible smell. There's a good intro to these methods on Dr. Bob's site here.
b: overridden methods Add, Delete, IndexOf
I'm guessing these methods use the FshadowList item in some way. Is it remotely possible that these methods are being invoked (and thus using FShadowList) before the FShadowList is created? This seems possible because you're using the AfterConstruction methods above, by which time virtual methods should 'work'. Hopefully this is easy to check with a debugger by setting some breakpoints and seeing the order they get hit in.
You should never override AfterConstruction and BeforeDestruction methods in your programs. They are not meant for what you're doing with them, but for low-level VCL hacking (like reference adding, custom memory handling or such).
You should override the Create constructor and Destroy destructor instead and put your initialization code here, like such:
constructor TAActionList.Create;
begin
inherited;
// Sorted := False; // not necessary IMHO
FShadowList := TStringList.Create;
end;
Take a look at the VCL code, and all serious published Delphi code, and you'll see that AfterConstruction and BeforeDestruction methods are never used. I guess this is the root cause of your problem, and your code must be modified in consequence. It could be even worse in future version of Delphi.
Clearly there is nothing suspicious about what TAActionList is doing at time of construction. Even considering ancestor constructors and possible side-effects of setting Sorted := False indicate there shouldn't be a problem. I'm more interested in what's happening inside T_fmMain.
Basically something is happening that causes FActionList := TAActionList.Create; to fail, even though there is nothing wrong in the implementation of TAActionList.Create (a possibility is that the form may have been unexpectedly destroyed).
I suggest you try changing T_fmMain.AfterConstruction as follows:
procedure T_fmMain.AfterConstruction;
begin
//This is safe because the object created has no form dependencies
//that might otherwise need to be initialised first.
FActionList := TAActionList.Create;
//Now, if the ancestor's AfterConstruction is causing the problem,
//the above line will work fine, and...
inherited AfterConstruction;
//... your error will have shifted to one of these lines here.
//other code here
end;
If an environment issue with a component used by your form is causing it destroy the form during AfterConstruction, then it's the assignment of the new TAActionList.Create instance to FActionList that's actually causing the AV. Another way to test would be to first create the object to a local variable, then assign it to the class field: FActionList := LActionList.
Environment problems can be subtle. E.g. We use a reporting component which we discovered requires that a printer driver is installed, otherwise it prevents our application from starting up.
You can confirm the destruction theory by setting a global variable in the form's destructor. Also you may be able to output a stack trace from the destructor to confirm the exact sequence leading to the destruction of the form.
Our software was "working fine" until a couple weeks ago... suddenly become an epidemic that 5 other users suddenly "find".) :
Sounds like you need to do some forensic analysis, not debugging: You need to discover what changed in that user's environment to trigger the error. All the more so if you have other users with the same deployment that don't have the problem (sounds like that's your situation). Sending a user 'things to try' is one of the best ways to erode user confidence very quickly! (If there is IT support at the user site, get them involved, not the user).
For starters, explore these options:
*) If possible, I'd check the Windows Event Log for events that may have occurred on that machine around the time the problem arose.
*) Is there some kind of IT support person on the user's side that you can talk to about possible changes/problems in that user's environment?
*) Was there some kind of support issue/incident with that user around the time the error surfaced that may be connected to it, and/or caused some kind of data or file corruption particular to them?
(As for the code itself, I agree with #Warran P about decoupling etc)
Things to do when MadExcept is NOT Enough (which is rare, I must say):
Try Jedi JCL's JCLDEBUG instead. You might get a stack traceback with it, if you change out MadExcept for JCLDEBUG, and write directly the stack trace to the disk without ANY UI interaction.
Run a debug-viewer like MS/SysInternals debugview, and trace output things like the Self pointers of the objects where the problems are happening. I suspect that somehow an INVALID instance pointer is ending up in there.
Decouple things and refactor things, and write unit tests, until you find the really ugly thing that's trashing you. (Someone suggested heap corruption. I often find heap corruption goes hand in hand with unsafe ugly untested code, and deeply bound UI+model cascading failures.)
I always try to create my Applications with memory usage in mind, if you dont need it then don't create it is the way I look at it.
Anyway, take the following as an example:
Form2:= TForm2.Create(nil);
try
Form2.ShowModal;
finally
Form2.FreeOnRelease;
end;
I actually think Form2.Destroy is probably the better option, which brings me to my question..
What is the difference between calling:
Form2.Destroy;
Form2.Free;
Form2.FreeOnRelease;
They all do the same or similar job, unless I am missing something.
And also when should any of the above be used? Obviously when freeing an Object I understand that, but in some situations is Destroy better suited than Free for example?
Form2:= TForm2.Create(nil);
This is a code-smell, because Form2 is probably the global, IDE-generated variable that would normally hold an IDE-created TForm2. You most likely want to use a local variable, and one with a better name. This is not necessary an error, just a code-smell.
Form2.Destroy vs Form2.Free
Use Form2.Free, because it calls Destroy anyway. You can CTRL+Click on the name (Free) to see it's implementation. Essentially Free calls Destroy if Self is not nil.
Form2.FreeOnRelease
As the documentation says, "It should not be necessary to call FreeOnRelease directly."
I've never actually heard of FreeOnRelease before. A quick Google search turned up the reason why. From the official documentation:
FreeOnRelease is called when an
interface implemented by the component
is released. FreeOnRelease is used
internally and calls the corresponding
interface method. It should not be
necessary to call FreeOnRelease
directly.
As for Free vs. Destroy, Free is a safety feature. It's basically implemented as if self <> nil then self.Destroy;, and it was created to make constructors and destructors safe to use. Here's the basic idea:
If you're constructing an object and an unhandled exception is raised, the destructor gets called. If your object contains other objects, they may or may not have been created yet by the time the error occurred, so you can't just try to call Destroy on all of them. But you need a way to make sure that the ones that have been created do get destroyed.
Since Delphi zeros out the address space of an object before calling the constructor, anything that hasn't been created yet is guaranteed to be nil at this point. So you could say if FSubObject <> nil then FSubObject.Destroy again and again for all the sub-objects, (and if you forget that you're going to get access violations,) or you can use the Free method, which does it for you. (This is a huge improvement over C++, where the memory space is not zeroed before the constructor is called, which requires you to wrap all your sub-objects in smart pointers and use RAII to maintain exception safety!)
It's useful in other places as well, and there's really no reason not to use it. I've never noticed that Free imposes any measurable performance penalty, and it improves the safety of your code, so it's a good idea to use it in all cases.
Having said that, when dealing with forms specifically, there's an additional variable to factor into the equation: the Windows message queue. You don't know if there are still pending messages for the form you're about to free, so it's not always safe to call Free on a form. For that, there's the Release method. It posts a message to the queue that causes the form to free itself once it's got no more messages to handle, so it's generally the best way to free a form you no longer need.
The canonical form is:
Form := TMyForm.Create(nil);
try
Form.ShowModal;
finally
Form.Free;
end;
Never call Destroy, always call Free instead.
FreeOnRelease is a total red herring. Sometimes, if there are queued messages destined for your form or its children, then you might elect to call Release although often that's indicative of design problems.
The idiomatic usage is
procedure SomeProc;
var
frm: TForm2;
begin
frm := TForm2.Create(nil);
try
frm.ShowModal;
finally
frm.Free;
end;
end;
or, unless you hate the with construct,
with TForm2.Create(nil) do
try
ShowModal;
finally
Free;
end;
You should never call Destroy, according to the documentation. In fact, Free is exactly equivalent to if Self <> nil then Destroy;. That is, it is a 'safe' version of Destroy. It doesn't crash totally if the pointer happens to be nil. [To test this, add a private field FBitmap: TBitmap to your form class, and then OnCreate (for instance), try FBitmap.Free vs. FBitmap.Destroy.]
If you create the form using the approach above, Free is perfectly safe, unless you do some strange things in the form class.
However, if you use CreateForm(TForm2, Form2) to create the form and store the form object in the global instance variable Form2 and you don't free it immediately [for instance, if you want the window to stick around next to the main form in a non-modal way for a few minutes], you should probably use Release instead of Free. From the documentation,
Release does not destroy the form
until all event handlers of the form
and event handlers of components on
the form have finished executing.
Release also guarantees that all
messages in the form's event queue are
processed before the form is released.
Any event handlers for the form or its
children should use Release instead of
Free (Delphi) or delete (C++). Failing
to do so can cause a memory access
error.
FreeOnRelease has nothing in particular do to with forms. From the docs:
It should not be necessary to call
FreeOnRelease directly.
the other way is passing caFree to Action of formonclose
procedure TForm1.FormClose(Sender: TObject; var Action: TCloseAction);
begin
Action := caFree;
end
I am trying to get the window handles to a Delphi application from an external application. I can see that there are a few windows created (TApplication, TFrmMain and a few others), and I know that TApplication is the "controller", but never visible. However, can I read what the value for the real window is? I know that it is TFrmMain (for this specific application), but is it possible to actually figure this out somehow? Is the information stored in the window properties,or somewhere else? Thanks!
No, there is no documented way to discover which of the windows represents Application.MainForm from outside the application. In newer versions of Delphi, the main form's window handle isn't necessarily Application.MainForm.Handle anyway; applications can handle the OnGetMainFormHandle event to return whatever they want — that's used for choosing the parent window for modal dialogs.
You can guess by looking for windows with "main" in their class names, but even if you find one, there's no guarantee that there's only one instance of it. Applications can have multiple top-level windows, in which case it doesn't make much sense to designate any one of them as the "main" one.
The class name of any Delphi form is also the registered window classname of the underlying "Windows window". So you should be able to use the FindWindow() Windows API call to get the window handle of TFrmMain a little something like:
hWnd := FindWindow('TFrmMain', NIL);
If there are (potentially) multiple instances of a given form class name then you may be able to distinguish between them by using the 2nd parameter (Window Name, i.e. "caption" or title). If that still isn't enough then you may need to get a little bit more sophisticated and look at using the EnumWindows() function and checking the properties of the windows to find the one of interest.
To test the classname of an arbirary window handle (e.g. in your callback function that you use with EnumWindows()), use GetClassName(), e.g:
function GetWindowClassName(const aHWND: HWND): String;
var
buf: array[0..255] of Char; // Tip: Use a more appropriately sized array
begin
GetClassName(SomeHWND, #buf, Length(buf));
result := buf;
end;
...
if SameText(GetWindowClassName(hwnd), 'TFrmMain') then
...
etc
Without specific details of your particular implementation challenge it's difficult to say which is most likely to work best for you, but hopefully that should be enough pointers to get you heading down the right track.
I usually use WinDowse to help me get started, but then you have to use the API functions as described by Deltics.