Post by Keyser Söze » 06.06.2017 23:20:42
Hi Sebastian,
I had a breakthrough that I thought it would be helpful sharing, and adding to the common community knowledge.
The problem I was having was in a "Thinapped" version of Dexpot, caused by the lack of a virtualisation parameter.
ThinApp is the successor of the late Thinstall, purchased by VMWare. It packages programs with their own virtual file and registry environments, allowing programs to run without having to install on a machine, without interference with the machine's file system (if desired) and registry, and carrying with itself all of its configurations, set-up, everything, be it in ini files or registry (in this case, virtual registry).
Despite you supplying the portable version, in my systematic head, nothing is trustworthy portable if not packaged with Thinapp. I had "portable" programs before that all that was portable on them was part of the title. Sadly, all programs now carry the stigma.
It turns out that the description of the problem was happening with this Thinapped version I created. I read a bit more Thinapp's documentation, and I found a parameter that solves completely the problem: in the package.ini file, ensure that Dexpot's dll files are loaded in the physical system, by adding the parameter
ExternalDLLs=Dexpot.dll;Dexpot64.dll;hooxpot.dll;hooxpot64.dll;zlibwapi.dll;d3dx9_43.dll;Leap.dll;msvcp100.dll;msvcr100.dll;zlibwapi.dll
For those interested, read more in the ThinApp Package.ini Parameters Reference Guide. With that, all configurations that did not work, now work beautifully. Since this was the first time that I had such a problem with packaged dll not talking to the physical system, I could not expect that loading of dll files could be the problem. But I could not accept that Dexpot would not work the way I wanted, and that Thinapp would not stand to the task. Gladly, I was the wrong bit of the set, both Thinapp and Dexpot can truly work together gracefully.
Therefore, there was nothing that you could or had to do to start with. The problem was with my packaging method only.
Thanks for the support, and may others rely on this solution if packaging Dexpot with virtualization solutions.
Hi Sebastian,
I had a breakthrough that I thought it would be helpful sharing, and adding to the common community knowledge.
The problem I was having was in a "Thinapped" version of Dexpot, caused by the lack of a virtualisation parameter.
ThinApp is the successor of the late Thinstall, purchased by VMWare. It packages programs with their own virtual file and registry environments, allowing programs to run without having to install on a machine, without interference with the machine's file system (if desired) and registry, and carrying with itself all of its configurations, set-up, everything, be it in ini files or registry (in this case, virtual registry).
Despite you supplying the portable version, in my systematic head, nothing is trustworthy portable if not packaged with Thinapp. I had "portable" programs before that all that was portable on them was part of the title. Sadly, all programs now carry the stigma.
It turns out that the description of the problem was happening with this Thinapped version I created. I read a bit more Thinapp's documentation, and I found a parameter that solves completely the problem: in the package.ini file, ensure that Dexpot's dll files are loaded in the physical system, by adding the parameter
ExternalDLLs=Dexpot.dll;Dexpot64.dll;hooxpot.dll;hooxpot64.dll;zlibwapi.dll;d3dx9_43.dll;Leap.dll;msvcp100.dll;msvcr100.dll;zlibwapi.dll
For those interested, read more in the ThinApp Package.ini Parameters Reference Guide. With that, all configurations that did not work, now work beautifully. Since this was the first time that I had such a problem with packaged dll not talking to the physical system, I could not expect that loading of dll files could be the problem. But I could not accept that Dexpot would not work the way I wanted, and that Thinapp would not stand to the task. Gladly, I was the wrong bit of the set, both Thinapp and Dexpot can truly work together gracefully.
Therefore, there was nothing that you could or had to do to start with. The problem was with my packaging method only.
Thanks for the support, and may others rely on this solution if packaging Dexpot with virtualization solutions.