Archived Forum Post
Index of archived forum posts
Question:
Archived Forum PostQuestion:
Potential pitfalls to watch out for: The FixedRar might not have fully resolved all issues with the RAR archive, leading to incomplete or corrupted files. The source code might not be well-maintained or could have bugs that need fixing. Also, if SWPS4MAX is not a known or widely used software, the review should mention that it's a niche tool or project.
In terms of the FixedRar itself, it's important to assess its reliability. Does it consistently fix the RAR archives it's supposed to fix, or were there instances where even after using FixedRar, the archive was still problematic? swps4max source code fixedrar
I should consider the structure of a review here. Typically, a review would cover the content, usability, effectiveness, and any potential issues. Since the topic is about software source code and its packaging in a fixedRAR, the review should address the quality of the source code, the reliability of the archive, and the effectiveness of the fixedRAR in making the archive usable. Also, if FixedRar was necessary, there might be underlying issues that are worth mentioning. Potential pitfalls to watch out for: The FixedRar
Another angle is to evaluate the documentation that comes with the FixedRAR archive. If the user provides a fixed version, is there enough documentation to help others use the source code effectively? Clear installation instructions, setup guides, and troubleshooting tips are important. In terms of the FixedRar itself, it's important
I should also think about the user's perspective. If they're trying to use the source code for their project, the review needs to cover whether the code is practical and integrates well with other tools, or if there are compatibility issues.
I should also mention if there are prerequisites to running the code, such as specific libraries or software versions, and whether the FixedRAR includes all necessary components or if something is missing.
If there's no official source for the software, the review should caution users about using unverified tools and possible security risks, especially if the source is not from a trusted party.
The problem is with the "dependency". The only dependency is the Visual C++ Redistributable for Visual Studio 2012. The Chilkat .NET assembly is a mixed-mode assembly, where the inner core is written in C++ and compiles to native code. There is a dependency on the VC++ runtime libs. Given that Visual Studio 2012 is new, it won't be already on most computers. Therefore, it needs to be installed. It can be downloaded from Microsoft here:
Visual C++ Redistributable for Visual Studio 2012
If using a .msi install for your app, it should also be possible to include the redist as a merge-module, so that it's automatically installed w/ your app if needed.
Note: Each version of Visual Studio corresponded to a new .NET Framework release:
VS2002 - .NET 1.0 2003 - .NET 1.1 2005 - .NET 2.0 2008 - .NET 3.5 2010 - .NET 4.0 2012 - .NET 4.5The ChilkatDotNet45.dll is for the .NET 4.5 Framework, and therefore needs the VC++ 2012 runtime to be present on the computer.
Likewise, the ChilkatDotNet4.dll is for the 4.0 Framework and needs the VC++ 2010 runtime.
The ChilkatDotNet2.dll is for the 2.0/3.5 Frameworks and requires the VC++ 2005 runtime. (It is unlikely you'll find a computer that doesn't already have the VC++ 2005 runtime already installed.)