" /> Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18 - Genesys CTI User Forum

Author Topic: Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18  (Read 7461 times)

This topic contains a post which is marked as Best Answer. Press here if you would like to see it.

Vic

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
Advertisement
Dear Genesys Pros:

does anyone know the difference in DDE messaging for Genesys Active X component version 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18? It seems like AttachData message format is different from 2.1.28.

Thanks,
Vic

Vic

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
Here is what I found :
in new ActiveX release, if you are using DDE to get data, you will find that attach data would not be properly delivered to the application. The reason for it is that Genesys has added an additional parameter BEFORE attach data, making all the applications we have developed so far utterly useless, because they were developed using old ActiveX format.

I did not find any documentation mentioning that they will change the format of the messages for the new ActiveX component.

In a manual it says that you can define a section in tserver.cfg file where you would be able to define DDE message format; however, this tserver.cfg is used by.... TServer???? Can a tserver.cfg file be used in combination with CME? Most of our clients use configuration server, so does anyone know how I can define a DDE message format in CME?

Thanks,
Vic

ed

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
Just courious why are you using Genesys ActiveX/DDE messaging?
If you have to interface with a DDE only app why not use VB or something to house your ActiveX control(s) and use VB's DDE capability? or use Genesys API to create software solution. Just curious?

Vic

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
Why? Because when our first SoftPhone was designed, we did not know how to use it properly, so we developed our own DDEcontrol using Genesys ActiveX DDE. Now, with Genesys suddenly changing the messaging, we are in really deep ...water :)

ed

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
Well When you say ActiveX are you meaning the Genesys Softphone with DDE interface? AtciveX replaces DDE ( If you mean Dynamic Data Exchange ), DDE is a standard method of communication and I am wondering how Genesys is able to accomplish changing it? Could you mean Genesys KVList parameters? DO you have the the ActiveX control set by Genesys and Visual Basic? If so ,depending on how complex your app is you may be able to go that route. I'm with you all the way on trying to reason why Genesys makes changes to processes that work already.

Javier Garagalza

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
I have problems with my ActiveX and the attached data. The EventLog component can see all the attached data to an event, but I can't access to it in Visual Basic code using TEventInfo.UserData.The value of the UserData is nothing (undefined object). Is it possible that we are using a version of GDTKX.ocx (where is defined TEventInfo type) that donLt understand the EventInfo sent by TServer?

Vic

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
You are not using DDE though, are you?

Marked as best answer by on Today at 09:42:08 PM

Javier Garagalza

  • Guest
Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
  • Undo Best Answer
  • No, we aren't. We have wrapped the Agent Starter application in an ActiveX and used it in Siebel.

    Jessica

    • Guest
    Difference between Active X 2.1.28 and pre2.1.18
    « Reply #8 on: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM »
    I would suggest checking your code then, because it should be working. Have you checked release notes for any notes about this kind of bug?