I am looking to create a program where I can set the maximum maximize size (as in the size the window maximises to when you hit the maximise button) and maximize position (X/Y coordinated for the maximised window) for all of the windows that are running. This is so that I can have my Rainmeter visible at all times on my secondary monitor without having to manually resize every window fit inside of it.
I have managed to do this for a simple program I wrote using MINMAXSIZE from the WinAPI. This method seems to work perfectly for my little program, but there is very little documentation on it beside 1 or 2 articles on the internet. I was wondering if this would be the best way to set the maximum maximise size, or if there is another way to do this.
They way I planned to implement this into all of the applications was going to be either DLL Injection or Hooks (neither of which I have any experience with), so I was also wondering your guys' thoughts on these methods.
I know there are a few applications out there that already do this, but I thought this could be a learning experience, and as well, all of the applications I tried do not work very well (although this could be the case with all of them due to the way Windows functions).
If any of you are still unsure about what I am talking about, MaxMax does exactly what I want (although it doesn't work so well, as I stated in my previous paragraph).
Thank you all in advance.
What you're probably looking for is the work area setting, that you can set/retrieve with the SystemParametersInfo function, called with the flags SPI_SETWORKAREA/SPI_GETWORKAREA.
What you want to do is use a global windows hook to handle WM_GETMINMAXINFO. As you may be aware, this is the message that is:
Sent to a window when the size or position of the window is about to
change. An application can use this message to override the window's
default maximized size and position, or its default minimum or maximum
tracking size.
The best way to use this to override the default maximum is to fill in the MINMAXINFO structure like so:
case WM_GETMINMAXINFO: {
DefWindowProc(hWnd, message, wParam, lParam);
MINMAXINFO* mmi = (MINMAXINFO*)lParam;
mmi->ptMaxTrackSize.x = 100;
mmi->ptMaxTrackSize.y = 100;
return 0;
}
This will allow the default values to be assigned to the sizes you don't care about (min x/y) in this case, leaving you to fiddle with the max values as you please. Your windows hook should be done with SetWindowsHookEx() and should look something like this:
SetWindowsHookEx(WH_CALLWNDPROC, hook_procedure, instance_handle, 0);
hMod (instance_handle) should only be set depending on the circumstances (check the docs for this). The dwThreadId mandates a global hook. Your CallWndProc might looks something like this:
__declspec(dllexport) LRESULT WINAPI CallWndProc(int nCode, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam) {
CWPSTRUCT* cwp = (CWPSTRUCT*)lParam;
if(WM_GETMINMAXINFO == cwp->message) {
DefWindowProc(hWnd, message, wParam, lParam);
MINMAXINFO* mmi = (MINMAXINFO*)lParam;
mmi->ptMaxTrackSize.x = 100;
mmi->ptMaxTrackSize.y = 100;
return 0;
}
return CallNextHookEx(next_hook, nCode, wParam, lParam);
}
Unfortunately something you are going to have to deal with is that the only windows that will be hooked are the ones that had were existing when you made your call to SetWindowsHookEx(). I'm not aware of a clean way of getting past this, short of looping a call to SetWindowsHookEx() (ergh!).
You could potentially do this with DLL injection and effectively subclass every window with EnumWindows, EnumChildWindow and SetWindowLongPtr/SetWindowSubclass. But why go to all that trouble when you could just use SetWindowsHookEx? :)
To alter the x/y, you might have to add an override for WM_SYSCOMMAND and check for SC_MAXIMIZE then use SetWindowPos/MoveWindow to position it properly (if you don't want it on the default 0, 0).
Related
I am implementing logic to handle global mouse clicks and I stuck at moment where I need to get data from LowLevelMouseProc. Currently, I am setting global variable at point when I am creating instance of MyClass and I able to access it from LowLevelMouseProc, but I suppose that isn't right approach.
Setting hook:
g_myClass = this;
SetWindowsHookEx(WH_MOUSE_LL, MyClass::MouseHookProc, LoadLibraryA("user32.dll"), 0);
LowLevelMouseProc:
LRESULT CALLBACK MyClass::MouseHookProc(int nCode, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam) {
MOUSEHOOKSTRUCT * pMouseStruct = (MOUSEHOOKSTRUCT *)lParam;
g_myClass.onClick(wParam, pMouseStruct->pt.x, pMouseStruct->pt.y); //isn't good
}
The low level mouse hook offers no mechanism by which you can retrieve an instance pointer. Using a global variable is often the best option.
If you cannot make your program work that way you will need to use a thunk. That technique has been discussed in many places and a web search will provide more detail. For instance a cursory search on my part yielded this: http://zabkat.com/blog/hook-callback-thunk-x64.htm
I started recently learning C++ and WinAPI, I want to be able to create my own programs
I am subclassing a button (into separate file, because I like things clean and organized - is that a bad idea?), because I want to have few of the kind with same parameters. I also want to draw it, and the question that pops to my mind is: wouldn't it be better to have it all in the class file? Meaning all parameters including custom draw. It is annoying to go to main file to change the looks and set all other parameters in the class file. I use codeblocks.
EDIT (explanation):
#include <Windows.h>
#include <Winuser.h>
#include "CustomButton.h"
/*global vars*/
WNDPROC CustomButton::CustomButtonLongPtr;
/*functions*/
LRESULT CALLBACK CustomButtonProc(HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam);
CustomButton * CustomButton::CreateCustomButton(HINSTANCE hInstance, HWND hwnd, int pos_x, int pos_y, int width, int height)
{
CustomButton * p_CustomButton = new CustomButton;
HWND customButton = CreateWindowEx(0, "BUTTON", "OK", WS_VISIBLE | WS_CHILD | BS_OWNERDRAW, pos_x, pos_y, width, height, hwnd, (HMENU)200, (HINSTANCE)GetWindowLong(hwnd, GWLP_HINSTANCE), p_CustomButton);
if(customButton == NULL)
{
delete p_CustomButton;
MessageBox(NULL, "Problem creating the Search box.", "Error", 0);
return 0;
}
CustomButton::CustomButtonLongPtr = (WNDPROC)SetWindowLongPtr(customButton, GWLP_WNDPROC, (LONG_PTR)&CustomButton::CustomButtonProc);
return p_CustomButton;
}
I want to use WM_DRAWITEM for this button in CustomButtonProc and I am wondering why did the developers think that it would be smarted to allow to use it only in parent WinProc.
This is a little complicated to explain.
You're probably coming from a background where you plug a function into an outlet to handle events, something like
extern void onClicked(void);
button->OnClicked = onClicked;
And while it's fully possible for Windows to have done this from the start, you have to remember that Windows was originally designed to run on systems with severely limited memory, so it was important that controls not waste memory. And there are a lot of events you can get from a button:
void (*OnClicked)(void);
void (*OnDoubleClicked)(void);
void (*OnDisabled)(void);
void (*OnHighlight)(void);
void (*OnKillFocus)(void);
void (*OnPaint)(void);
void (*OnSetFocus)(void);
void (*OnUnhighlight)(void);
void (*OnUnpushed)(void);
HBRUSH (*OnCtlColorButton)(void);
Having these for every button in your program — that is, push buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons, and groupboxes — with most of them likely to be unused would just be a massive waste of memory.
Because Windows needs a way to communicate between the system and a window and between windows, Microsoft decided to create a message-passing interface where each message had a 16-bit code and two pointer-sized (originally one 32-bit and one 16-bit) parameters and a pointer-sized return value. And there aren't a lot of messages that Windows needs for itself, giving both window classes and the application a lot of real estate for using messages to communicate. So why not use a message to signal the event?
Using a message avoids the waste of memory while still allowing the button to pass data to and return data from its target window. So the logic follows that all a button would need to do is
/* this is not the correct syntax but let's use it for expository purposes */
#define BN_CLICKED someNumberHere
case WM_LBUTTONUP:
SendMessage(GetParent(hwnd), BN_CLICKED, hwnd);
break;
and the parent would handle that:
case BN_CLICKED:
if (whichButton == button1)
doButton1Stuff();
break;
No wasted memory, but still flexible and extensible. And even more importantly, also binary-compatible: if more events were added later, the size of the function pointer table would need to change, and newer programs that tried to use newer events on older systems would clobber random memory. With messages, these programs would just have dead code.
Now why send the message to the parent? If we view windows as communication endpoints, then this is obvious: you want the button to tell its parent that it was clicked because you're communicating that the button was clicked!
But more important, you didn't write the button's window procedure. Microsoft did, and they provide the same one to every program. If you could handle the message in the button procedure, where would you put it? You can't change the button procedure, after all.
(Nowadays we have something called "subclassing" which allows you to override a single window's window procedure to do custom processing. It's not used for event handling because it's more work than just sending up to the parent.)
All of this extends to custom draw; just substitute "custom draw" for "clicked" and it should still make sense. Hopefully this explanation was clear, even with that mental substitution.
If you want, you can write your own facility to handle events in the function pointer way. Keep a map of window handles to event functions and call a global dispatch function in all your window procedures to handle the event messages WM_COMMAND, WM_NOTIFY, and (for trackbars) WM_HSCROLL and WM_VSCROLL. How you do this is up to you, but think about whether you really want to do it this way; sometimes it's necessary, but sometimes it isn't. If you do, remember to provide a way to pass arbitrary data to the event function that's decided at event connection time, so the event handler can do something reasonable without relying on global state.
Thanks to comments by RemyLebeau and IInspectable I was able to also find solution to my frustration, which I am going to explain here for anybody else who's scratching their heads over this very issue.
This solution does not require VCL nor any component from Visual Studio and such.
First define your own custom message, in the way that you can reach it inside WndProc:
#define MY_DRAWITEM (WM_APP+1)
UINT uDrawButtonMsg = RegisterWindowMessage(_T("MY_DRAWITEM"));
Then find out what number it is assigned:
std::cout << uDrawButtonMsg; //for example 49648
And send this message from WndProc to your subclassed control from any message you wish, for example WM_DRAWITEM:
case WM_DRAWITEM:
{
::SendMessage(p_CustomButton->customButton, uDrawButtonMsg, wParam, lParam);
break;
}
And then in your subclass just catch the message by the 5 digit number you looked for while ago:
if(49648 == uMsg)
{
//do your DRAWITEM stuff here
}
Thanks to everybody who contributed to this article helping with exaplanation, tips and also historical background!
I'm trying to limit the access of the users of my program to the keyboard. To do that I've defined a low level keyboard hook:
LRESULT CALLBACK lowLevelKeyboardProc(int key, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
KBDLLHOOKSTRUCT* pkbhs = (KBDLLHOOKSTRUCT*)lParam;
switch (key)
{
case HC_ACTION:
....
and hooked it:
m_hHook = SetWindowsHookEx(WH_KEYBOARD_LL, (HOOKPROC)lowLevelKeyboardProc, 0, 0);
I need the users to be able to use only the alphanumeric chars, ~, #, # ... only the chars that can be in a password (printable chars).
What would be the easiest way to differentiate between those chars and all the others using the low level keyboard hook parameters: int key, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam ?
The program is written in c++ and compiled in VC2010.
All help is appreciated!
Before actually answering your question, I have a couple of questions for you:
Why would you want to do this globally, using a global low-level keyboard hook?
Although sometimes they are the only way to solve a problem, using a global hook like this is generally strongly discouraged for many reasons. There are many better ways of preventing a user from entering invalid or unacceptable data. For example, I would just disable the keys you don't want for a particular control or set of controls (e.g. all textboxes). That way, the user can still use keyboard shortcuts and other non-alphanumeric keys to interact with your application, which is critical for accessibility reasons. Remember that a global hook will affect all of the other threads running on the machine, not just your app—that is probably not what you want.
Even if you do decide to use a global hook, are you sure that you really need to disable all of the non-alphanumeric keys? What about Backspace and Delete? Shouldn't the user be able to delete things? And what about Tab? Enter? And what about modifier keys, like Shift, Ctrl, and Alt: are those allowed?
Please seriously reconsider whether you really need a low-level hook before continuing forward with this design. If you need help on devising another solution, please ask a new question, describing what you want to accomplish (e.g., I want to prevent users from entering any non-alphanumeric characters in a textbox control; here is the code I use to create my textbox…).
But if you insist on ignoring my advice, the solution is rather simple: investigate the members of the KBDLLHOOKSTRUCT structure that is passed to the hook procedure. The vkCode member gives you the virtual key code of the key that was pressed. Chances are, that is all the information you need. But just in case it's not, the hardware scan code of the key is also provided in the scanCode member.
Unfortunately, the code that you currently have is wrong. The first parameter to the hook callback procedure is indeed an int, but it is not a key code. Rather, it is a code that signals how the hook procedure should process the message. Use it like this:
LRESULT CALLBACK LowLevelKeyboardProc(int nCode, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
{
// If nCode is greater than or equal to HC_ACTION, process the message.
if (nCode >= HC_ACTION)
{
KBDLLHOOKSTRUCT* pkbhs = reinterpret_cast<KBDLLHOOKSTRUCT*>(lParam);
// Handle the keys as you wish here.
//
// Remember that pkbhs->vkCode gives you the virtual key code
// of the key that was pressed.
//
// To prevent a particular key from being processed, you should
// return a non-zero value (e.g. 1) immediately.
}
// Pass the message on.
return CallNextHookEx(m_hHook, nCode, wParam, lParam);
}
And when you install the hook, there is absolutely no need to cast the function pointer. Pointless casts like this just hide potential compile-time errors, leading to a crash at runtime. Write it simply:
m_hHook = SetWindowsHookEx(WH_KEYBOARD_LL, lowLevelKeyboardProc, 0, 0);
Using Visual Studio C++ with MFC. How do I center a MessageBox to it's parent window? Currently it centers to the desktop.
You need to install a hook and change the dialog box position on creation.
int MessageBoxCentered(HWND hWnd, LPCTSTR lpText, LPCTSTR lpCaption, UINT uType)
{
// Center message box at its parent window
static HHOOK hHookCBT{};
hHookCBT = SetWindowsHookEx(WH_CBT,
[](int nCode, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam) -> LRESULT
{
if (nCode == HCBT_CREATEWND)
{
if (((LPCBT_CREATEWND)lParam)->lpcs->lpszClass == (LPWSTR)(ATOM)32770) // #32770 = dialog box class
{
RECT rcParent{};
GetWindowRect(((LPCBT_CREATEWND)lParam)->lpcs->hwndParent, &rcParent);
((LPCBT_CREATEWND)lParam)->lpcs->x = rcParent.left + ((rcParent.right - rcParent.left) - ((LPCBT_CREATEWND)lParam)->lpcs->cx) / 2;
((LPCBT_CREATEWND)lParam)->lpcs->y = rcParent.top + ((rcParent.bottom - rcParent.top) - ((LPCBT_CREATEWND)lParam)->lpcs->cy) / 2;
}
}
return CallNextHookEx(hHookCBT, nCode, wParam, lParam);
},
0, GetCurrentThreadId());
int iRet{ MessageBox(hWnd, lpText, lpCaption, uType) };
UnhookWindowsHookEx(hHookCBT);
return iRet;
}
::AfxMessageBox() appears on the center of the MainFrame for me. Which is basically a call to ::MessageBox() with a handle to the MainFrame as the first parameter. Isn't that working for you?
You can't. That's why a lot of people write their own MessageBox classes.
Who said "can't"?
Try this:
This is for Win32 API, written in C. Translate it as you need...
case WM_NOTIFY:{
HWND X=FindWindow("#32770",NULL);
if(GetParent(X)==H_frame){int Px,Py,Sx,Sy; RECT R1,R2;
GetWindowRect(hwnd,&R1); GetWindowRect(X,&R2);
Sx=R2.right-R2.left,Px=R1.left+(R1.right-R1.left)/2-Sx/2;
Sy=R2.bottom-R2.top,Py=R1.top+(R1.bottom-R1.top)/2-Sy/2;
MoveWindow(X,Px,Py,Sx,Sy,1);
}
} break;
Add that to the WndProc code... You can set position as you like, in this case it just centres over the main program window. It will do this for any messagebox, or file open/save dialog, and likely some other native controls. I'm not sure, but I think you may need to include COMMCTRL or COMMDLG to use this, at least, you will if you want open/save dialogs.
I experimented with looking at the notify codes and hwndFrom of NMHDR, then decided it was just as effective, and far easier, not to. If you really want to be very specific, tell FindWindow to look for a unique caption (title) you give to the window you want it to find.
This fires before the messagebox is drawn onscreen, so if you set a global flag to indicate when action is done by your code, and look for a unique caption, you be sure that actions you take will only occur once (there will likely be multiple notifiers). I haven't explored this in detail, but I managed get CreateWindow to put an edit box on a messagebox dialog. It looked as out of place as a rat's ear grafted onto the spine of a cloned pig, but it works. Doing things this way may be far easier than having to roll your own.
Crow.
EDIT: Small correction to handle the problem raised by Raymond Chen. Make sure that parent handles agree throughout, and this should work ok. It does for me, even with two instances of the same program...
I want to subclass RichEdit in my program (here is c++ code: http://dumpz.org/46182/). _native_log is a hwnd of richedit. At first all works fine and LogWindow::wndProc callback called normal, but if i set some text in RichEdit or click on them LogWindow::wndProc stops work (there no any further calls of it). Is there any thoughts what's i do wrong?
void LogWindow::replaceNativeLog(HWND native_log_handle) {
_native_log = native_log_handle;
SendMessage(_native_log, EM_GETOLEINTERFACE, 0, (LPARAM) &_rich_edit_ole);
_old_wnd_proc = (WNDPROC) SetWindowLongPtr(_native_log, GWLP_WNDPROC, (LONG) &wndProc);
}
LRESULT LogWindow::wndProc(HWND hWnd, UINT Msg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam) {
switch (Msg) {
case EM_STREAMIN:
break;
case WM_SETTEXT:
break;
};
return CallWindowProc(_old_wnd_proc, _native_log, Msg, wParam, lParam);
}
Starting with Common Controls version 6 the procedure of subclassing windows has been revised to eliminate the issues with previous versions. In particular it is no longer a problem if a control is subclassed more than once.
A comparison between subclassing pre-v6 Common Controls and the v6 way of doing things can be found at "Subclassing Controls". Instead of calling SetWindowLongPtr to replace the window procedure there is SetWindowSubclass which in addition to replacing the window procedure does all the internal bookkeeping. A consequence of the redesign is that you do not have to store a pointer to the previous window procedure either; if you need to call into the original window procedure there is DefSubclassProc at your disposal.
This of course will only help if all competing clients trying to subclass the a control all agree on using the v6 style subclassing.
Finally, I found the problem. I actually develop a plugin for Miranda IM, and there was another function trying to subclass richedit i want. So there is a kind of conflict between my and that functions. Thanks all for trying to help.