.NET does not natively support COM. Whenever you talk about using .NET with
COM you are by definition using wrappers. So what Matt said is completely
true.
His Black Knight product works differently through a direct C interface used
by CFX tags. Has some advantages and disadvantages and is certainly worth
checking out.
Sam
-----------------------------------------------
Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com
Charts: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting
-----------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 7:04 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects
>
> Matt,
>
>
> 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
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
- WDDX vs raw XML? Shawn Grover
- RE: WDDX vs raw XML? Tom Kitta
- CF MX 6.1 and com objects Andrew Scott
- RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Andrew Scott
- RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Samuel R. Neff
- RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Andrew Scott
- Re: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Matt Liotta
- RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Andrew Scott
- RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Samuel R. Neff
- RE: CF MX 6.1 and com objects Andrew Scott
- RE: WDDX vs raw XML? Shawn Grover
- Re: WDDX vs raw XML? Matt Liotta