Option has not been unlocked
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:38 pm
Hi Loic,
Something strange is happening today. I've been working on an app for a few weeks using GDViewer and GdPictureImaging. I've had no problems up until now. When running the application I now receive the following messages:
Image processing: This option has not been unlocked !
Please, unlock it with a trial or commercial license key use the SetLicenseNumber() method.
You can get a free 1 month trial license key from http://www.evalution-gdpicture.com
Raster iamge & metafile viewing: This option has not been unlocked !
Please, unlock it with a trial or commercial license key use the SetLicenseNumber() method.
You can get a free 1 month trial license key from http://www.evalution-gdpicture.com
After hitting OK on these messages everything seems to work fine.
I have the following code in my Form_load method:
gdViewer1.SetLicenseNumberUpgrade("xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx");
imaging1.SetLicenseNumberUpgrade("xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx");
Any thoughts?
Neal.
Something strange is happening today. I've been working on an app for a few weeks using GDViewer and GdPictureImaging. I've had no problems up until now. When running the application I now receive the following messages:
Image processing: This option has not been unlocked !
Please, unlock it with a trial or commercial license key use the SetLicenseNumber() method.
You can get a free 1 month trial license key from http://www.evalution-gdpicture.com
Raster iamge & metafile viewing: This option has not been unlocked !
Please, unlock it with a trial or commercial license key use the SetLicenseNumber() method.
You can get a free 1 month trial license key from http://www.evalution-gdpicture.com
After hitting OK on these messages everything seems to work fine.
I have the following code in my Form_load method:
gdViewer1.SetLicenseNumberUpgrade("xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx");
imaging1.SetLicenseNumberUpgrade("xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx", "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx");
Any thoughts?
Neal.