How the hell do you think you know what I am doing...
Were did I say I was creating a wrapper, I am developing a com object
nothing more nothing less. The object has business logic that will be widley
used across all our applications. But for some reason it compiles but does
not register properly. Or at least .Net says it is. but coldfusion says it
is not.
Regards
Andrew Scott
Technical Consultant
NuSphere Pty Ltd
Level 2/33 Bank Street
South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205
Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976
_____
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 10:51 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX 6.1 and com objects
Are you trying to use a COM wrapper for a .NET object? If so, I would
recommend skipping the pain that is the Java-COM bridge and instead use
Black Knight
(http://montarasoftware.com/go/9d58a59e-df02-1157-affb-e87c411e1c8f).
Matt Liotta
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
On Jan 5, 2004, at 6:12 PM, Andrew Scott wrote:
> Hoping someone can help me out here, trying to create a com object with
> Studio .Net 2003. Now I have built the solution and .Net tells me I
> can use
> it in any application and that it is registered. However coldfusion
> can't
> create the object, is there a special trick to get a com object to work
> under CFMX.
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated..
>
> Regards
> Andrew Scott
> Technical Consultant
>
> NuSphere Pty Ltd
> Level 2/33 Bank Street
> South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205
>
> Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976
>
> _____
>
> From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 10:09 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: WDDX vs raw XML?
>
> I don't think 4 or 5 should pose as a problem. I know I have a WDDX
> solutions that has around 5 or 6 and it works fine. Also you may check
> out
> wddx site and see whatever there is a limit or no limit at all. It
> would be
> strange in my opinion if the limit (if any) was set to something under
> 10.
>
> TK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:05 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: WDDX vs raw XML?
>
> We have a situation where we need to pass complex data structures
> from the
> server to the client, and from the client back to the server. In the
> past,
> I've handled this with WDDX, but am aware of a "quasi" limit to how
> deep
> you
> can nest WDDX packets. Our current app is going to need multiple
> levels -
> probably 4 or 5. (i.e. the Base object has a collection which
> contains
> other
> objects that contain collections which contains other objects that
> contains
> collections, etc....).
>
> We've done some brief exploration of the XML functions in CFMX, and
> suspect
> this is probably the best choice for complex data like
> this. However, I'd
> like to hear from others in the group to see if there are any other
> reasonable alternatives. (other than creating individual WDDX
> objects for
> each possible collection).
>
> Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
>
> Shawn
> _____
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
