NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 02:49 AM |
|
Support for inactive user
|
Would like to request support for inactive user time-out.
Not sure if Windows has a native method but maybe by checking mouse input and keyboard input.
Maybe something like this.
InActive('time period')
Then based on return you could script what action you wanted to perform.
| Radimus |
| (KiX Supporter) |
| 2006-05-05 04:03 AM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
There has to be some hook, but I was going to do something like monitoring the processes for screensaver running...
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 04:28 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Well checking screen saver probably not good since lot of people don't use it.
I know their is code out on the Web for doing it and other Win32 applications support it so I'm sure it can be done.
Guess it's up to Ruud to decide if it warrants his time to implement it or not.
| Arend_ |
| (MM club member) |
| 2006-05-05 08:04 AM |
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
I know there is a GPO for that when a user is using Terminal Services, you can even let the GPO decide to log the user off after xxx minutes, it monitors the last input given by the user. Not sure if this can be done on a client computer though...
[edit]
I've found this, hope it might help you in the mean time
Idle Time dll
[/edit]
|
Lonkero
|
| (KiX Master Guru) |
| 2006-05-05 08:51 AM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
this was discussed some years ago pretty heavily and no answer that would enable kixtarter to use the idle timer was found.
if you will, let us know.
|
Richard H.
|
| (KiX Supporter) |
| 2006-05-05 08:59 AM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Well, the full source is included with the DLL so why not make it KiXtart friendly and recompile?
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 09:31 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
not an extensive search but I found these articles on the subject as well.
Validated Idle Time Detection
http://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/01-04/01-04-idle.html
Detecting Application Idleness
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/ApplicationIdle.asp
Getting the user idle time with C#
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/GetIdleTimeWithCS.asp
How to Use the VTune™ Performance Analyzer to Detect Idle Time
http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/dc/threading/knowledgebase/43812.htm
How can I detect user activity?
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win32.programmer.wmi/msg/cfce0781c5d63e55
HOW TO: Detect User Idle Time or Inactivity in Access 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=210297
|
Lonkero
|
| (KiX Master Guru) |
| 2006-05-05 10:03 AM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
so, easiest to get to idletimer is to ask shawn to add lastinput api call to kixforms.
right?
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 07:27 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Quote:
so, easiest to get to idletimer is to ask shawn to add lastinput api call to kixforms.
right?
No, that would be of little value to I'm sure thousands of users who don't use KiXforms.
The request is to have NATIVE KIXTART support, not how do I get a work-around.
| Les |
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 07:38 PM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Quote:
No, that would be of little value to I'm sure thousands of users who don't use KiXforms.
How would that be any different than the thousands of users that have to carry the extra baggage of a bloated KiX to support something few would use? I mean, KiX is considered mostly a logon script processor and as such, users are generally not idle for long periods of time when they are logging on.
Those that use KiX for admin scripting or advanced application scripting outside of the context of logon would be more likely to use KiXforms anyway.
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 07:55 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Fine, disregard. Don't add it. Keep KiX as it is forever. Silly me, I'll just deploy KiXforms instead
|
Lonkero
|
| (KiX Master Guru) |
| 2006-05-05 08:15 PM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
oh, the gpo app deploy sucks big time...
anyways, sure, having it in kixtart as a macro would be awesome.
but knowing the slowness of progress on that part, I can't even dream that ever happening.
sorry ruud, but I can't say any different here.
| Les |
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-05 08:23 PM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Quote:
Fine, disregard. Don't add it. Keep KiX as it is forever. Silly me, I'll just deploy KiXforms instead
No need to get your knickers in twist just cuz someone has an opinion different than yours. This is still an open forum where we are free to discuss the merit of any suggestion.
| Bryce |
| (KiX Supporter) |
| 2006-05-06 10:50 PM |
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Quote:
so, easiest to get to idletimer is to ask shawn to add lastinput api call to kixforms.
right?
Kixforms already supports this.
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-07 07:30 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Perhaps, but it was a joke, I'm not going to deploy KiXforms.
Maybe time for that discussion that keeps coming up.
Maybe have at least 2 versions of KiXtart.
KiXtart Pro: For the hard-core scripter
No limits or constraints on size or features
KiXtart Home Editon: For the Logon only scripter
Limited features and small size
|
Lonkero
|
| (KiX Master Guru) |
| 2006-05-07 12:49 PM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
thought there already was this?
so, what's the diff between wkix32.exe and kix32.exe again?
| Radimus |
| (KiX Supporter) |
| 2006-05-07 03:08 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
That would KiXlite and KiXstout
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-07 08:39 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
They are not different in any way except one uses console the other does not. Both are about same size and both have same features.
|
Lonkero
|
| (KiX Master Guru) |
| 2006-05-07 11:08 PM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
not true doc.
as example, kix32.exe does not properly parse the commandline arguments. (see the bug posts some months ago)
|
NTDOC
|
| (KiX Master) |
| 2006-05-08 05:36 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Shouldn't even reply, but will.
Come on surely you're joking and you do understand the difference I'm suggesting.
|
Lonkero
|
| (KiX Master Guru) |
| 2006-05-08 06:05 AM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
yes, I do know what you are suggesting.
and it won't happen, ever, hopefully.
what should happen, ruud should add module support into kixtart in similar way as perl has it's modules. so, you wouldn't need to deploy anything, just say "feature needed" and it would be loaded.
this way the core would remain small.
on the other hand, these small additions won't bloat the executable as much as, for an example, the tokenization engine.
or such module plugin support.
imho.
|
Richard H.
|
| (KiX Supporter) |
| 2006-05-08 09:41 AM |
|
Re: Support for inactive user
|
Quote:
what should happen, ruud should add module support into kixtart in similar way as perl has it's modules. so, you wouldn't need to deploy anything, just say "feature needed" and it would be loaded.
this way the core would remain small.
What a great idea, why has no-one suggested this before!?
We could put the code into say, I dunno, a "library" and then dynamically link in the code only when we need it. If the library could register it's APIs and properties so that version control could be used and the library functions reused reliably among many different unrelated projects that would save an immense amount of time and effort for everyone.
Of course the interfaces / APIs could then be used for automating the use of the library objects via scripting if a standard (common) object model was defined and the API interfaces are designed to support basic data types.
"COM", "Automation", "DLL"?
Nah, forget it - it'll never happen.