Join Date Jul Posts 2. Closing another program in C I would like to know how I can create a program in visual c that closes another program, such as word, when the user presses the middle mouse button. July 31st, , AM 2. Join Date Jul Posts July 31st, , PM 3. Re: Closing another program in C Sorry didn't read the whole question Here ya go Code:. July 31st, , PM 4. Re: Closing another program in C That worked perfectly, thank you. Can't close process but kill.

Etrade vs optionshouse

Emre Acar Published at Dev 3. Emre Acar I have a strange problem. That piece of code can open and kill processes but always timeouts when closing them. Following lines does 'nt do the work. ForEach Process. Now ; obj. CloseMainWindow ; obj. Sleep ; if Process. GetProcessesByName applicationName. Now ; if killable. WaitForExit are called. The assumption is that. Kill either succeeds - in which the process does get terminated and indefinite waiting is guaranteed to end shortly - or fails altogether, so that there's no point in supporting a timeout.

I can see arguments for both options; if needing to fall back to forced termination is a common scenario, I can see the appeal of option B. Kill signal. CloseMainWindow by default, and only send. Kill if it failed to signal "Close" or if -Force was specified then default to.

After all the discussion I see why we wouldn't want to change that functionality of expecting Stop-Process to always result in a process that is. Kill a process if necessary, while only adding a small minimum and adjustable timeout. Option B is a nice medium between the current "Always default to kill everything" and my originally provided code of "Try to send Close, but Kill if. NET says that failed to send". I think the only point we are getting hung on talking about is that I am thinking Stop-Process 'Notepad','Outlook' with a default -ByRequest implied Would result in.

In many Close signal and just close itself before you're checking on the timeout anyway. If this used a Low default for ByRequest 20 millis? No idea of a best value for that yet then we should be looking at. Close signals. For me, using three processes, that took about millis to send the. Close commands and finish the cmdlet. So if it had a milli ByRequest timer, you are done sending the Close signals long before the ByRequest time expires In the case this could be separate enhancement since it is not mandatory for enhancement we consider here.

I feel most of users follow intuitively the terms.

WinSCP hangs with ASP.NET

I believe we need to follow this in parameter names too. If we ask users what is:. But Stop-Process -ByRequest will force them to read docs before get understanding its semantic. If we start with adding new Terminate switch and perhaps Kill for symmetric this will address current issue in simplest way and open ways for future enhancements.

On a meta note, I think at this point it is clear that before implementing anything we need to write up a new , focused proposal, following this discussion. Therefore I think it's worth having this discussion, even as it gets lengthy.

MultipleRingBuffer_analysis

Based on my new proposal below we won't need the -Wait switch, after all, but in general I find that argument problematic: While with Option A -Wait would technically not be necessary it would be with Option B , it would greatly increase the utility of the enhancement. If -Wait were still in the picture, I wouldn't see a reason to do this separately, not least because I suspect it would then never be implemented. While I like the idea of these contrasting switches to make the two modes explicit, there is the awkwardness of then having a switch being true by default , namely -Kill.

Familiarity with the term terminate likely only applies to Unix users; in the context of the GUI window-centric Windows, close is used, as reflected in the. Kill , while unambiguous in terms of common usage, is tainted by the conceptual confusion of both taskkill.

As an approved verb, Stop has no precise definition with respect to cooperative vs. However, given that the approved-verbs documentation lists under "synonyms to avoid" for Stop "End, Kill, Terminate, Cancel", the implication is that Stop is meant to cover both cooperative and forced stopping. Of course, it would then make sense to consistently make cooperative stopping the default, with an opt-int for forced stopping.

Regrettably, Stop-Process not only doesn't offer cooperative stopping, but invariably performs forced stopping. In short: We won't be able to use existing terminology from one platform without it clashing with that of another. My suggestion was motivated by using names based on platform-neutral abstractions that express the conceptual intent ; perhaps -ByRequest isn't great, and something like -Graceful a shorter version of the previously suggested -GracefullyShutdown is more descriptive.

If we had established semantics of Stop without further qualification implying cooperative graceful stopping, then we'd only ever need a switch to opt-into forced stopping - and the obvious name for such a switch would be -Force.

Re: Closing another program in C#

PsychoData :. We cannot default to cooperative stopping without breaking backward compatibility - users may have come to rely on unconditional , forced, quasi-synchronous termination. Given the conceptual musings above, I sincerely wish we could break backward compatibility, which makes this a candidate for As for timeouts: For simplicity and predictability, I'd use the timeout as a single, overall waiting period, irrespective of how many processes are targeted: I would start a single timing in the End block not sure what Wait-Process does.

This is similar to Option B, except that -Wait is no longer required. Conversely, a new -NoWait switch must be used to request asynchronous behavior. Note: For consistency, I suggest also making the by-default kill operation synchronous call. WaitForExit after. Kill : this would technically also be a breaking change, albeit an acceptable one bucket 3: Unlikely Grey Area : I think it would have virtually no impact on existing code given that. Kill forcefully terminates, I would expect the extra time spent waiting for actual termination to be negligible while making the behavior slightly more predictable even though it's unlikely that the current asynchronous behavior surfaces as such.

PsychoData , note that this proposal intentionally does not include a built-in, automatic kill timeout with -Graceful termination: Users should be free to decide whether they want to:. Thanks, iSazonov , but let me spell out the implications of your proposal, from which I conclude that it is not worth implementing as such:.

The application does have a main message loop it is a GUI-subsystem application but is currently in a state where it cannot process messages - a typical example is a modal dialog currently being shown. The application does not have a message loop a console-subsystem application , except if it has one indirectly , by running directly in a console window , which itself does have a message loop. This means:. Even if we address all the problems above - i. I believe we should do the cmdlet too smart and complex. It is currently impossible to send an event or signal to a process so that it terminates gracefully.

We're thinking to port our.

• Understanding Process in C#;
• How to print pdf silently in with C#? - CodeProject;
• Managing Processes in .NET.
• C# (CSharp) System.Diagnostics.Process.CloseMainWindow Examples.

Thanks, iSazonov - good find, and I do think that starting small is an option, but let me flesh your suggestion out to see its full implications:. Existing Stop-Process behavior will remain as-is: unconditional kill behavior, asynchronous even though in practice it will in effect typically be synchronous.

If termination does occur, it may not occur until some time later more noticeably so than with the default kill behavior. To detect whether termination occurred, a separate Wait-Process call is needed, sensibly with a -Timeout argument.

c# - ainWindow equivalent for a program running in tray? - Stack Overflow

If the processes don't terminate within the timeout period and termination must be enforced , another Stop-Process call is needed, this time without -Graceful , to effect killing. This means that console applications launched from a shell can NOT be targeted such as node. If everyone agrees that this - initially minimal - functionality is still beneficial and the implications are understood and well-documented, I think it's worth doing. For reference - Process.

I was proposing the very opposite: I was proposing to simply use the underlying platform feature, without trying to superimpose any additional logic which I thought you were advocating for :.

• forex rates reserve bank of india.
• Re: Closing another program in C#?
• forex srbija zarada.
• eforexindia online.