Fastream Technologies wrote:
> Upgrading might be simpler than you think. Just rename ICSv5 folder,
> unzip and install v6 package and then rename all ICS unit names so
> that they start with "OverbyteIcs...".
Indeed it is easy, however if you have derived classes with overidden
WndProc-methods a
Hi,
ICSv6 beta is stable. We have been using it since 2006 and our customers are
fully taking advantage of it with hundreds of GBs of serving in months of
running...
Upgrading might be simpler than you think. Just rename ICSv5 folder, unzip
and install v6 package and then rename all ICS unit name
Hello Olivier,
> I went further and traced it to the XSocketAllocateHWnd method that
> returns 0 when called from the TCustomWSocket.Create constructor for
> my client class.
There is a maximum number of user handles, per-process (default 1),
and system-wide (AFAIK $), so this error seems
Hi all,
I have a server here with parts of it written using Indy and parts of it
written using ICS. The two parts are distinct, listen on different ports
and do not share any resources. Basically, I'm looking at replacing Indy
with ICS and would like to have both technologies in one service to
Yes, Arno is right, I forgot that even though we did those overriding in our
codes. Sorry.
Regards,
SZ
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Arno Garrels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fastream Technologies wrote:
>
> > Upgrading might be simpler than you think. Just rename ICSv5 folder,
> > unzip and
Hi,
Why don't you upgrade to v6? It was designed for sharing hidden Windows.
Best Regards,
SZ
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Olivier Sannier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a server here with parts of it written using Indy and parts of it
> written using ICS. The two parts ar
Because all my development was made with v5, that I do not want to move
to v6 right now as it is still a beta, and that I think there must be
something I did wrong to get this error message.
Sure, it would be nice to use v6, but it's not possible right now.
Fastream Technologies wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
