CodeJock pane "pin" and "close" icons in WB5 Skins?

WB paints over the titlebar . . so if you have other titlebar apps . . . expect it not to work. Just one of those things I guess.

Theme Support Xtreme Docking Pane provides several built in themes that are ready to use. You can choose from any of the predefined themes or create your own.

Sounds like the app does it's own skinning, and will most likely be excluded by WB.

Thanks... I will try asking the question on the CodeJock developer forums. Is it just silly to suggest that StarDock put their heads together with CodeJock to ensure WB5 will thoroughly skin CodeJock apps? I've seen their dockable panes toolkit used in Ulead products and WS_FTP, which are pretty popular consumer product apps... that is, if StarDock / CodeJock don't perceive each other as competitors... but it's in both of their best interests that their skinning technology be compatible.

Ok, well, nothing so far on the CodeJock board... I'm pretty sure this is an issue with WindowBlinds, as when I turn off Window Blinds, Window's XP skins work fine. So there is some control being skinned by Windows XP native styles that is not being skinned by WindowBlinds. And when I disable Window's XP's fancy skins, there is still a rather plain-and-flat looking "Pin" and "close" icon, so there's some degree of compatibility with Windows XP's native skinning technology that isn't duplicated with WindowBlinds. If one of the StarDock developers has any insights (including even "you're s*it out of luck" at least I'd have... closure

Take a look at Prof-UIS (http://www.prof-uis.com). They added skinning support recently and this is available even in their freeware. Only two skins so far but the library works independently from WindowsBlinds.

You can exclude the app in the Per Application section of WB Config, or set it to skin only the titlebar...

Thanks... CodeJock includes quite sophisticated skinning technology for their controls, but from a UI design standpoint, I believe apps with fancy skins that deviate too far from the users overall OS theme are indulgences of GUI designers (artistes!) or an incorrect business decision ("Our program should look UNIQUE and FLASHY!") so, while I am a WindowBlinds user myself, I want all the apps I use (and the app I'm marketing) to look "the same" as other apps, so users will know what they're seeing (I had a TERRIBLE time finding how to change the destination drive in Roxio Easy Media Creator 6... the freeks had used their own skin, and put the drive change "button" (which didn't look clickable at all) at the very bottom right corner. I couldn't find (or figure out) the right phrase to search on in the help... I ended up having to read the step-by-step instruction just to find out how to pick my DVD burner instead of my CDRW drive. Sheesh.

Hello,

I am one of the developers at Codejock Software and I ran across your post while surfing the net so I thought I would post a follow-up to your initial question. We just released Xtreme ToolkitPro / SuitePro 2006 Beta 1 which incorporates skinning technology, and we would be more than happy to work with Stardock to resolve any compatibility issues they may have.

Here's a snippet from our homepage http://www.codejock.com

March 15^th, 2006 (Beta 1 Released)
Codejock Software® today released Xtreme ToolkitPro™ 2006 and Xtreme SuitePro™ 2006 Beta 1, a preview of Codejock's next-generation interface development tools for Visual Studio .NET®. Xtreme ToolkitPro™ and Xtreme SuitePro™ incorporate two entirely NEW technologies for advanced interface development Xtreme SkinFramework and Xtreme RibbonBar as well as major enhancements to their calendar component Xtreme Calendar!

Press Release |  Codejock Beta Website

Thanks... I'm not looking for skinning tools... mostly, I'm looking for ways to make the CodeJock controls accept whatever OS "theme" including those of WindowBlinds.

There's a code sample on the CodeJock developer forums "SliderSample" and when I attempt to compile it, I get errors of this nature:

CXTPControl::GetAccessibleName(struct tagVARIANT,unsigned short * *)" (?GetAccessibleName@CXTPControl@@MAEJUtagVARIANT@@PAPAG@Z)
XTPControlSlider.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "protected: virtual long __thiscall CXTPControl::GetAccessibleName(struct tagVARIANT,unsigned short * *)" (?GetAccessibleName@CXTPControl@@MAEJUtagVARIANT@@PAPAG@Z)

I have not idea how to resolve it. I want to prove it can be done, so I can point the GUI developer in the right direction (he's too busy coding important things to resolve this rather minor cosmetic issue, so I'm researching it... thanks!

I'm still looking... but I've discovered that StyleXP will skin the controls, and they state in their skinning tool documentation that these controls are not common, but gui components can ask for these icons

GROUP Name="General"
CLASS Name="ExplorerBar"
PART Name="HeaderClose"
Property Name="ImageFile" Value="ExplorerBarHeaderClose.bmp"
PART Name="HeaderPin"
Property Name="ImageFile" Value="ExplorerBarHeaderPin.bmp"

When I see "ExplorerBar", I'm thinking it means Windows Explorer, or Internet Explorer... and the position where they place the icons in the their GUI preview is not somewhere I've ever seen those icons appear.

They do skin when Window Blinds is off. I can not attribute this to CodeJock at all. It seems clear that it is a shortcoming in WindowBlinds that I can not name this control for skinning and provide a file in my skin (or adjust other skins to include it).

Is there any plan on the part of StarDock to add support for these controls to both WindowBlinds and SkinStudio?

Is there a list of Windows XP Luna Theme controls that WindowBlinds does not support, and possibly documentation that will allow a WindowBlinds theme to be extended to support these icons, without specific support being added by StarDock?

Help? Anyone? When our app ships, I'd like to at least be able to tell users if they're having this problem how to update their favourite skin... I REALLY don't want to tell them to set our app to be ignored by WindowBlinds, nor do I want to suggest they disable it altogether.

bump: any help?