Bill and all the other respondees, I have definitely proved that this is a design time problem and I can recreate an instance of the problem at on demand. The problem seems to be with timing in that calling the base class code "sometimes" needs to have a delay between the original method call and the subclassed method call.
The circumstances that make this happen are always when the level of subclassing is more than 3 deep and the solution seems to be adding liberal DoEvents in the code between levels. It is just as though the code that is trying to be accessed hasn't had time to compile in the background after changes - All my code is programmatic as opposed to visual and the runtime simply ignores it. If the .prg baseclass code is precompiled then the error never seems to occur - hence only being present in the design IDE. So Solution: Always manually precompile baseclass code before running OR insert liberal Doevents which seems to allow time for the baseclass code to recompile when testing after a baseclass amendment. I may be completely off the mark here in the diagnosis, but it sure does seem to make sense of the errors encountered and the observed "ignoring" of calls to the baseclass code. Dave Crozier -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Sanders / EFG Sent: 20 March 2008 00:08 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: VFP9 Wierd Behaviour Heya Dave - I'd say change your test bed - to be totally isolated from your dev environment. Move your filesets, at a minimum, to some other folder on yer computer, then start yer test. I'm a bit more agressive - I don't test on the same machines that I write code on - I have other boxes for that, even unit testing. I think yer crossing the streams somehow, and there's something dangling, left open, somewhere, and that load() method just ain't a firing. Mondo Regards [Bill] -- William Sanders / efGroup [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
