As part of one of my projects build process I need to call a 3D tool
which opens and converts files listed in a script passed to it. As
part of this process it opens a Direct3D window, which displays the
interface of the tool and some progress bars.
In the days before ccnet I had a batch file that executed the tool
with the commandline parameter, and off it will go.
I've set up an Executable block to do the same thing as the batch
file, and it isn't working. The tool crashes when it starts.
Attaching to it with a debugger suggests that it is unable to create a
video driver to display the Direct3D window.
Is there something special about the execution environment ccnet's
<exec> task block runs apps in? Does it somehow not have access to
Windows XP's normal array of standard I/O such as access to DirectX?
I've searched around to see if the particular method ccnet uses has
any peculiarities but my google-fu powers appear to be weak.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:26 PM, seffyroff <seffyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As part of one of my projects build process I need to call a 3D tool > which opens and converts files listed in a script passed to it. As > part of this process it opens a Direct3D window, which displays the > interface of the tool and some progress bars.
> In the days before ccnet I had a batch file that executed the tool > with the commandline parameter, and off it will go.
> I've set up an Executable block to do the same thing as the batch > file, and it isn't working. The tool crashes when it starts. > Attaching to it with a debugger suggests that it is unable to create a > video driver to display the Direct3D window.
> Is there something special about the execution environment ccnet's > <exec> task block runs apps in? Does it somehow not have access to > Windows XP's normal array of standard I/O such as access to DirectX? > I've searched around to see if the particular method ccnet uses has > any peculiarities but my google-fu powers appear to be weak.
seffyroff writes: > Is there something special about the execution environment ccnet's > <exec> task block runs apps in? Does it somehow not have access to > Windows XP's normal array of standard I/O such as access to DirectX? > I've searched around to see if the particular method ccnet uses has > any peculiarities but my google-fu powers appear to be weak.
The problem is that a windows service can't interact with the desktop (there's a option to allow that but it didn't work for me). If you run it in the console runner (ccnet.exe) it should work, because then it's not a service and has access to your desktop. Not a very elegant solution but i doubt there is an other one.
> are you running CCNet as as service?
> if so, try running it as console first and see if this works.
> with kind regards
> Ruben Willems
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:26 PM, seffyroff <seffyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As part of one of my projects build process I need to call a 3D tool
> > which opens and converts files listed in a script passed to it. As
> > part of this process it opens a Direct3D window, which displays the
> > interface of the tool and some progress bars.
> > In the days before ccnet I had a batch file that executed the tool
> > with the commandline parameter, and off it will go.
> > I've set up an Executable block to do the same thing as the batch
> > file, and it isn't working. The tool crashes when it starts.
> > Attaching to it with a debugger suggests that it is unable to create a
> > video driver to display the Direct3D window.
> > Is there something special about the execution environment ccnet's
> > <exec> task block runs apps in? Does it somehow not have access to
> > Windows XP's normal array of standard I/O such as access to DirectX?
> > I've searched around to see if the particular method ccnet uses has
> > any peculiarities but my google-fu powers appear to be weak.
seffyroff writes: > What are the downsides to not running as a service?
Your "cruisecontrol user" needs to be logged in and have the console runner running. That's not very elegant on a server. But as far as i can tell it works quite well.
> seffyroff writes:
> > What are the downsides to not running as a service?
> Your "cruisecontrol user" needs to be logged in and have the console
> runner running. That's not very elegant on a server. But as far as i can
> tell it works quite well.
-----Original Message----- From: ccnet-user@googlegroups.com [mailto:ccnet-user@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of seffyroff Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:27 PM To: ccnet-user Subject: [ccnet-user] Re: Executable Task Block Exec Environment Different Somehow?
That's acceptable to me.
One of these days I'll have the words 'Quick and dirty' mounted on a plaque above my desk.
Thanks for the help!
On Aug 29, 3:57 pm, Daniel Hommel <daniel.hom...@it-designers.de> wrote: > seffyroff writes: > > What are the downsides to not running as a service?
> Your "cruisecontrol user" needs to be logged in and have the console > runner running. That's not very elegant on a server. But as far as i can > tell it works quite well.
> -----Original Message----- > From: ccnet-user@googlegroups.com [mailto:ccnet-user@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of seffyroff > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:27 PM > To: ccnet-user > Subject: [ccnet-user] Re: Executable Task Block Exec Environment Different Somehow?
> That's acceptable to me.
> One of these days I'll have the words 'Quick and dirty' mounted on a > plaque above my desk.
> Thanks for the help!
> On Aug 29, 3:57 pm, Daniel Hommel <daniel.hom...@it-designers.de> > wrote: >> seffyroff writes: >>> What are the downsides to not running as a service? >> Your "cruisecontrol user" needs to be logged in and have the console >> runner running. That's not very elegant on a server. But as far as i can >> tell it works quite well.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ccnet-user@googlegroups.com [mailto:ccnet-user@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of seffyroff
> > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:27 PM
> > To: ccnet-user
> > Subject: [ccnet-user] Re: Executable Task Block Exec Environment Different Somehow?
> > That's acceptable to me.
> > One of these days I'll have the words 'Quick and dirty' mounted on a
> > plaque above my desk.
> > Thanks for the help!
> > On Aug 29, 3:57 pm, Daniel Hommel <daniel.hom...@it-designers.de>
> > wrote:
> >> seffyroff writes:
> >>> What are the downsides to not running as a service?
> >> Your "cruisecontrol user" needs to be logged in and have the console
> >> runner running. That's not very elegant on a server. But as far as i can
> >> tell it works quite well.
|
