Strange Automation Issue

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

Here's an update on the situation.

You'll recall that there are two machines with problems, and two apps --
"App A" (the original) and "App B" (the pared-down version). One machine had
problems with automation with App A; the other machine worked with App A but
had automation issues with App B. No other machines had problems. At least
part of the puzzle has been resolved.

The user who was having trouble with App A had created a shortcut to Word on
her own, and, it turns out, she found an old copy of Word 97 on the server
and opened that instead of Word 2000. After that, the automation code in
Access didn't work (the reference was to Word 2000) -- though, for some
reason, it was able to open Word and create the reference, but wasn't able
to do anything with it. Once she stopped using that shortcut and began using
Word 2000 again, the problem went away.

So that takes care of that.

Regarding the second issue, as noted in my response to TC, it turns out that
I *did* have different code between App A and App B -- App A had been
changed a few months back, though I forgot about it. App A was using early
binding, and App B was using late binding. And, despite the literature,
early binding was working, but late binding wasn't. So I changed App B to
early binding to match App A, but it's still not working.

And that's where I'm at now.

Neil
All the news that's fit to print.


"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.f or.me.com> wrote in message
news:bnquv8$vhs $1@newsg2.svr.p ol.co.uk...[color=blue]
> Neil
>
> Now that this thread has arrived on my machine and
> notwithstanding Tom's lead in the other thread (which
> perhaps offers more hope).
>
> Word is (I believe) an application that likes to have only
> one instance running - although I think I've got multiple
> instances running from code before now for reasons
> I've never got to the bottom of. Also, I've read some
> incomprehensibl e stuff on memory not being released
> when some object variables are set to Nothing after
> they've been created using 'New' (even when no other
> variables are pointing to the same object).
>
> So, as you're using CreateObject, is there any mileage
> in using the GetObject function first (to utilise any
> running instance of Word, if Word prefers to be in
> memory only once or simply to save system resources).
> And, if GetObject produces error 429, then using
> CreateObject?
>
> I've seen two coding variations for the above, each of
> which uses a boolean variable to leave Word running
> if GetObject was successful, but quit Word if
> CreateObject was successful. (I can post samples if
> you want them.)
>
> No doubt you're destroying object variables when
> no longer needed by setting them to Nothing.
>
> Presumably all Office/Windows service packs are
> installed on the offending machine.
>
> I realise this doesn't address your specific issue or
> the bizarre nature of your code suddenly not
> working - but HTH.
>
> Like Tom, I'd be interested in your solution.
>
> Regards
> Geoff
>
>[/color]

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

Here's a new twist. I just went into App B with the new early binding code
on the machine that's having problems (no other machine has problems), and
ran the code to open a Word doc. Interesting results. I get a message that
the specific document is locked by another user (the current user of that
machine) and I'm given the option of opening it Read Only, etc. I select
Read Only and the document opens in Word. I then go back to my app, and
there's the same Automation Error as before -- only, instead of it being on
the line that opens the Word doc, it's on the line:

objWord.visible = True

The Word instance was already visible, since I saw the document open. But
that line of code hadn't been executed.

Again, this is the same code that's running fine on other machines.
Interesting.

Neil

"Neil Ginsberg" <nrg@nrgconsult .com> wrote in message
news:hTzob.1016 7$Px2.7595@news read4.news.pas. earthlink.net.. .[color=blue]
> Here's an update on the situation.
>
> You'll recall that there are two machines with problems, and two apps --
> "App A" (the original) and "App B" (the pared-down version). One machine[/color]
had[color=blue]
> problems with automation with App A; the other machine worked with App A[/color]
but[color=blue]
> had automation issues with App B. No other machines had problems. At least
> part of the puzzle has been resolved.
>
> The user who was having trouble with App A had created a shortcut to Word[/color]
on[color=blue]
> her own, and, it turns out, she found an old copy of Word 97 on the server
> and opened that instead of Word 2000. After that, the automation code in
> Access didn't work (the reference was to Word 2000) -- though, for some
> reason, it was able to open Word and create the reference, but wasn't able
> to do anything with it. Once she stopped using that shortcut and began[/color]
using[color=blue]
> Word 2000 again, the problem went away.
>
> So that takes care of that.
>
> Regarding the second issue, as noted in my response to TC, it turns out[/color]
that[color=blue]
> I *did* have different code between App A and App B -- App A had been
> changed a few months back, though I forgot about it. App A was using early
> binding, and App B was using late binding. And, despite the literature,
> early binding was working, but late binding wasn't. So I changed App B to
> early binding to match App A, but it's still not working.
>
> And that's where I'm at now.
>
> Neil
> All the news that's fit to print.
>
>
> "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.f or.me.com> wrote in message
> news:bnquv8$vhs $1@newsg2.svr.p ol.co.uk...[color=green]
> > Neil
> >
> > Now that this thread has arrived on my machine and
> > notwithstanding Tom's lead in the other thread (which
> > perhaps offers more hope).
> >
> > Word is (I believe) an application that likes to have only
> > one instance running - although I think I've got multiple
> > instances running from code before now for reasons
> > I've never got to the bottom of. Also, I've read some
> > incomprehensibl e stuff on memory not being released
> > when some object variables are set to Nothing after
> > they've been created using 'New' (even when no other
> > variables are pointing to the same object).
> >
> > So, as you're using CreateObject, is there any mileage
> > in using the GetObject function first (to utilise any
> > running instance of Word, if Word prefers to be in
> > memory only once or simply to save system resources).
> > And, if GetObject produces error 429, then using
> > CreateObject?
> >
> > I've seen two coding variations for the above, each of
> > which uses a boolean variable to leave Word running
> > if GetObject was successful, but quit Word if
> > CreateObject was successful. (I can post samples if
> > you want them.)
> >
> > No doubt you're destroying object variables when
> > no longer needed by setting them to Nothing.
> >
> > Presumably all Office/Windows service packs are
> > installed on the offending machine.
> >
> > I realise this doesn't address your specific issue or
> > the bizarre nature of your code suddenly not
> > working - but HTH.
> >
> > Like Tom, I'd be interested in your solution.
> >
> > Regards
> > Geoff
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Tom Wickerath]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

Did you work as an "indexer" as your first job? <smile>

Also, have you been able to rule out the possibility of incorrect OLE Automation
system files? I was thinking that perhaps this particular PC does not have the
Windows XP operating system, but it had some other software installed, which may
have installed an incorrect version of the OLE Automation files intended for
Windows XP. That scenerio may have led to the automation error you reported for
your application....

_______________ _______________ _______

"Neil Ginsberg" <nrg@nrgconsult .com> wrote in message
news:D3oob.9507 $RQ1.6299@newsr ead3.news.pas.e arthlink.net...
[color=blue]
> and I would have thought that Access 2002 is a part of Office XP, and that
> Access 2003 is a part of Office 2003.[/color]

Remember: indexers are just poor slobs who have stared at too many
characters over too many cups of coffee for too many hours.

Neil

[TC]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

Keep us posted!

TC


"Neil Ginsberg" <nrg@nrgconsult .com> wrote in message
news:s0Aob.1018 1$Px2.8796@news read4.news.pas. earthlink.net.. .[color=blue]
> Here's a new twist. I just went into App B with the new early binding code
> on the machine that's having problems (no other machine has problems), and
> ran the code to open a Word doc. Interesting results. I get a message that
> the specific document is locked by another user (the current user of that
> machine) and I'm given the option of opening it Read Only, etc. I select
> Read Only and the document opens in Word. I then go back to my app, and
> there's the same Automation Error as before -- only, instead of it being[/color]
on[color=blue]
> the line that opens the Word doc, it's on the line:
>
> objWord.visible = True
>
> The Word instance was already visible, since I saw the document open. But
> that line of code hadn't been executed.
>
> Again, this is the same code that's running fine on other machines.
> Interesting.
>
> Neil
>
> "Neil Ginsberg" <nrg@nrgconsult .com> wrote in message
> news:hTzob.1016 7$Px2.7595@news read4.news.pas. earthlink.net.. .[color=green]
> > Here's an update on the situation.
> >
> > You'll recall that there are two machines with problems, and two apps --
> > "App A" (the original) and "App B" (the pared-down version). One machine[/color]
> had[color=green]
> > problems with automation with App A; the other machine worked with App A[/color]
> but[color=green]
> > had automation issues with App B. No other machines had problems. At[/color][/color]
least[color=blue][color=green]
> > part of the puzzle has been resolved.
> >
> > The user who was having trouble with App A had created a shortcut to[/color][/color]
Word[color=blue]
> on[color=green]
> > her own, and, it turns out, she found an old copy of Word 97 on the[/color][/color]
server[color=blue][color=green]
> > and opened that instead of Word 2000. After that, the automation code in
> > Access didn't work (the reference was to Word 2000) -- though, for some
> > reason, it was able to open Word and create the reference, but wasn't[/color][/color]
able[color=blue][color=green]
> > to do anything with it. Once she stopped using that shortcut and began[/color]
> using[color=green]
> > Word 2000 again, the problem went away.
> >
> > So that takes care of that.
> >
> > Regarding the second issue, as noted in my response to TC, it turns out[/color]
> that[color=green]
> > I *did* have different code between App A and App B -- App A had been
> > changed a few months back, though I forgot about it. App A was using[/color][/color]
early[color=blue][color=green]
> > binding, and App B was using late binding. And, despite the literature,
> > early binding was working, but late binding wasn't. So I changed App B[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > early binding to match App A, but it's still not working.
> >
> > And that's where I'm at now.
> >
> > Neil
> > All the news that's fit to print.
> >
> >
> > "Geoff" <geoff@nospam.f or.me.com> wrote in message
> > news:bnquv8$vhs $1@newsg2.svr.p ol.co.uk...[color=darkred]
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > Now that this thread has arrived on my machine and
> > > notwithstanding Tom's lead in the other thread (which
> > > perhaps offers more hope).
> > >
> > > Word is (I believe) an application that likes to have only
> > > one instance running - although I think I've got multiple
> > > instances running from code before now for reasons
> > > I've never got to the bottom of. Also, I've read some
> > > incomprehensibl e stuff on memory not being released
> > > when some object variables are set to Nothing after
> > > they've been created using 'New' (even when no other
> > > variables are pointing to the same object).
> > >
> > > So, as you're using CreateObject, is there any mileage
> > > in using the GetObject function first (to utilise any
> > > running instance of Word, if Word prefers to be in
> > > memory only once or simply to save system resources).
> > > And, if GetObject produces error 429, then using
> > > CreateObject?
> > >
> > > I've seen two coding variations for the above, each of
> > > which uses a boolean variable to leave Word running
> > > if GetObject was successful, but quit Word if
> > > CreateObject was successful. (I can post samples if
> > > you want them.)
> > >
> > > No doubt you're destroying object variables when
> > > no longer needed by setting them to Nothing.
> > >
> > > Presumably all Office/Windows service packs are
> > > installed on the offending machine.
> > >
> > > I realise this doesn't address your specific issue or
> > > the bizarre nature of your code suddenly not
> > > working - but HTH.
> > >
> > > Like Tom, I'd be interested in your solution.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Geoff]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

Thanks for the kick up the proverbial...

You've forced me to re-read about single-use and
multiple-use application classes.

I see that Word's application class is single-use (by
default) or multiple-use. This was the missing piece
of the jigsaw in my understanding of using 'New',
'CreateObject' and 'GetObject'.

This seems amazing now as I've been using these
commands successfully for some time.

Thanks again.
Geoff

[Geoff]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

> Again, this is the same code that's running[color=blue]
> fine on other machines.[/color]

Neil,

Starting from the above premise, if the code runs fine
on other machines, then it seems the problem is not
with the code, but with the user or the machine.

User: Does the user only have read-only rights to
the folder in which the Word document is stored?

(Presumably the file is not read-only if other users
are OK.)

Machine:
* Is the network connection OK?
* Is the software on this machine up-to-date?
* Is the right software being used?

(Don't you just love users who set up shortcuts?
Who'd have thought of that one?)

Waiting with bated breath for your patience to
snap so we get to see the unprintable comments!

Regards
Geoff

PS I don't get the early/late-binding issue if
references were set correctly.

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

I agree that it seems to be the machine. The app appears to have no problems
on any other machine, and, now that the other issue (where the user was
opening an old version of Word) is resolved, I'm chalking this last issue up
to the machine, and stepping away from it for a while. The machine that's
having problems is only used as a dial-up portal for us PCAnywhere users, so
it's not a biggie. So, for now, I'm letting it drop. If I ever get this
resolved, I'll be sure to post it here.

Thanks everyone for your help!

(Sorry about not having any unprintable comments to print! :-) )

Neil


"Geoff" <geoff@nospam.f or.me.com> wrote in message
news:bo3fc6$og4 $2@news8.svr.po l.co.uk...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Again, this is the same code that's running
> > fine on other machines.[/color]
>
> Neil,
>
> Starting from the above premise, if the code runs fine
> on other machines, then it seems the problem is not
> with the code, but with the user or the machine.
>
> User: Does the user only have read-only rights to
> the folder in which the Word document is stored?
>
> (Presumably the file is not read-only if other users
> are OK.)
>
> Machine:
> * Is the network connection OK?
> * Is the software on this machine up-to-date?
> * Is the right software being used?
>
> (Don't you just love users who set up shortcuts?
> Who'd have thought of that one?)
>
> Waiting with bated breath for your patience to
> snap so we get to see the unprintable comments!
>
> Regards
> Geoff
>
> PS I don't get the early/late-binding issue if
> references were set correctly.
>
>
>[/color]

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Strange Automation Issue


"Tom Wickerath" <AOS168 AT Comcast DOT com> wrote in message
news:HnnAIx.EK6 @news.boeing.co m...[color=blue]
> Did you work as an "indexer" as your first job? <smile>[/color]

Actually, I was a tech writer for a few years and had to do my own indexes.
As much as I'd want the indexes to be perfect, there were always flaws in
them, and it was always a tedious job that I couldn't wait to be finished
with. So I have sympathy for indexers and have come to not expect much from
indexes (or, at least, I'm willing to see the human element in the index).
[color=blue]
> Also, have you been able to rule out the possibility of incorrect OLE[/color]
Automation[color=blue]
> system files? I was thinking that perhaps this particular PC does not[/color]
have the[color=blue]
> Windows XP operating system, but it had some other software installed,[/color]
which may[color=blue]
> have installed an incorrect version of the OLE Automation files intended[/color]
for[color=blue]
> Windows XP. That scenerio may have led to the automation error you[/color]
reported for[color=blue]
> your application....[/color]

That could be. It seems clearly to be something with the machine, and that
seems a likely explanation.

Neil

[color=blue]
>
> _______________ _______________ _______
>
> "Neil Ginsberg" <nrg@nrgconsult .com> wrote in message
> news:D3oob.9507 $RQ1.6299@newsr ead3.news.pas.e arthlink.net...
>[color=green]
> > and I would have thought that Access 2002 is a part of Office XP, and[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> > Access 2003 is a part of Office 2003.[/color]
>
> Remember: indexers are just poor slobs who have stared at too many
> characters over too many cups of coffee for too many hours.
>
> Neil
>
>
>[/color]

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

I should add that there are "profession al indexers" who do nothing but that.
So, apparently, they're not all poor overworked slobs. Some actually thrive
in that field. I just recall how I felt when I did my indexes........ .

:-)

Neil

"Tom Wickerath" <AOS168 AT Comcast DOT com> wrote in message
news:HnnAIx.EK6 @news.boeing.co m...[color=blue]
> Did you work as an "indexer" as your first job? <smile>
>[/color]

[Tom Wickerath]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

I know you indicated in another post (11/3/03, 11:25 PM) that:

"So, for now, I'm letting it drop. If I ever get this
resolved, I'll be sure to post it here".

But, I'm still curious if the OLE Automation system files might be the issue. Can you
search for the file named "Oleaut32.d ll" on the PC that is still having the problem, and
report back which version that it is? Also, which operating system does this machine
have?

Ref.: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;320108

_______________ _______________ _______________

"Neil Ginsberg" <nrg@nrgconsult .com> wrote in message
news:JxIpb.6959 $qh2.2851@newsr ead4.news.pas.e arthlink.net...


That could be. It seems clearly to be something with the machine, and that
seems a likely explanation.

Neil
_______________ _______________ _______________

Also, have you been able to rule out the possibility of incorrect OLE Automation system
files? I was thinking that perhaps this particular PC does not have the Windows XP
operating system, but it had some other software installed, which may have installed an
incorrect version of the OLE Automation files intended for Windows XP. That scenario may
have led to the automation error you reported for your application....

[Neil Ginsberg]

Re: Strange Automation Issue

> But, I'm still curious if the OLE Automation system files might be the
issue. Can you[color=blue]
> search for the file named "Oleaut32.d ll" on the PC that is still having[/color]
the problem, and[color=blue]
> report back which version that it is? Also, which operating system does[/color]
this machine[color=blue]
> have?[/color]

The machine is running Win 98 SE, and the version of Oleaut32 is
3.50.5016.0. However, after posting my message last night I realized that it
has to be something else. Recall that there was "App A" (original) and "App
B" (pared-down copy), and that App A works on that machine, whereas App B
doesn't. I did determine while responding to TC that App B used late
binding, so I changed it to match App A's early-binding code. After that,
the problem shifted a bit so that it does open the Word doc (previously
didn't), though it first tells me that it's locked by me; but then fails
when setting Word to visible (and Word was already visible).

So the bottom line is that App B is having problems (albeit different ones
than originally) whereas App A isn't, and they both have the same code and
references, from what I can see. So this doesn't make sense. But, if there's
any consolation, it would be that App B apparently works fine on all other
machines. So go figure......

If you want me to look at anything else, let me know.

Neil