Hello,
i am new on Codeplex. I find your great library and i needed to deploy on a old windows 2003 sp2 server with .NET 3.0 only installed.
My program enum the task and write the name to a file, and do different action on each task. It seems that task named with a name like <name>.<something> are ignored. After a step in debug mode, it seems that when the name of the job finish with an extension the com interface raise an exception, if the .job after the .<something> is kept the com interface looks work fine.
I modify the MoveNext method to remove the folowing lines:
if (curItem.EndsWith(".job", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
curItem = curItem.Remove(curItem.Length - 4);
I think that the job's name didn't need to be parsed and remove the .job extension. It seem's that the com interface already do this work to return and activate task.
I test this modification on a windows 7 system, windows 2003 SP2 server and seems to work fine.
i am new on Codeplex. I find your great library and i needed to deploy on a old windows 2003 sp2 server with .NET 3.0 only installed.
My program enum the task and write the name to a file, and do different action on each task. It seems that task named with a name like <name>.<something> are ignored. After a step in debug mode, it seems that when the name of the job finish with an extension the com interface raise an exception, if the .job after the .<something> is kept the com interface looks work fine.
I modify the MoveNext method to remove the folowing lines:
if (curItem.EndsWith(".job", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
curItem = curItem.Remove(curItem.Length - 4);
I think that the job's name didn't need to be parsed and remove the .job extension. It seem's that the com interface already do this work to return and activate task.
I test this modification on a windows 7 system, windows 2003 SP2 server and seems to work fine.