Error when accessing SAPbobsCOM.Documents Object (ErrorCode: -2147417851)

Question

Hello!
I have a problem when running this code:
private SAPbobsCOM.Documents comObject;
comObject = (SAPbobsCOM.Documents)c.Connection.GetBusinessObject(SAPbobsCOM.BoObjectTypes.oOrders);
comObject.Address = "Address";
Then I get the exception:
'comObject.Address' threw an exception of type 'System.Runtime.InteropServices.COMException'
ErrorCode: -2147417851
I have read the Help and I thinkt that this statements are correct.
Has anyone an idea to solve this problem?
Thank you very much.

Answer 1

Hi Martin,
The error you get is a COM "Server threw an error"-error. As far as I understand it (which is not very far at all), you've got an invalid underlying handle somewhere.
You might google for it and find some answers. Mind you the error code is commonly written in hex, so that'll be 80010105.
IMHO there are two possibilities. Either your code is bogus or your OS is bogus. The problem may have been unveiled by the last patch/upgrade of whatever.
Firstly, the code. I'm not sure I quite understand what kind of "pooling" you speak of. You said:
> If there is no Object in the pool a new one will be created, otherwise it will be taken from
> the pool.
But that's not really a pool, that's an initialisation-on-demand. Why would you need a collection structure for that?
You could need a pool if you had connections to multiple databases/companies simultaneously. But why would you need a LIFO ("Stack") for that? Or maybe you multi-thread?
Anyway, I'd address this possibility first, if I were you. Instead of obtaining a Company Object from witherever you got it until now, create one just before the critical portion of the code. That's just for debugging, of course.
The other possibility is that your OS is bogus, not in the general kind of way of being Win32, but in the sense that there may be a trouble with your COM service. Try updating it, apply a MS "Service Pack" or however it is called -- maybe you'll find something in in the "Knowledge Base", too.
But the latter might be kind of tedious, so I'd try to rule out the former, as far as possible, first.
BTW, have you been able to reproduce this error on different machines?