Ok - well we dont have any issue with COM natively.
I have knocked up a java app that actually connects across servers.
Would this mean I have a fair to middling chance of getting a java
class working and then extended thru CF?
On 6/1/06, Gary Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No specifics. Just that not all COM operations map properly. In my
> experience, VARIANTs and other data types can be problematic.
>
> So - if there are basic problems like that - then I stay clear.
>
> In pre MX days (when COM was core because it was predominantly an MS code
> base) the problems existed the other way ( i.e. COM to Corba).
>
> We previously had a pre MX system talking COM happily to a report server
> product. Post MX migration none of that worked and the developers
> implemented a horrid <cfexecute> solution driving batch files. We are in
> the process of implmented a report request broker on an ASP machine (talking
> COM again directly) to: A) get the report server off the CFMX box, B)
> provide a more asynchronous method for obtaining the reports and C) to allow
> the richer functionality of the COM interface in an environment that
> supports it almost natively.
>
> Other peoples experience may differ.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary
>
> On 6/1/06, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > What are the symptoms of it being caused by the corba/com bridge?
> >
> > How can this be identified exactly?
> >
> > On 6/1/06, Gary Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > *IF* the problem is in the Corba/COM bridge - then writing it in Java
> > > wouldn't help much.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/1/06, Duncan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > 10 machines - yes afraid so, 2 cf 5, 1 x cf7, 7 x cf 6.1
> > >
> > > The COM object connects to an AI server - www.burning-glass.com
> > >
> > > It all works very reliably in 6.1 and we have no problems at all.
> > >
> > > I have looked at DCOM and am having some serious issues getting it
> > > going - has anyone done this / have some instructions on how to do it?
> > >
> > > I was also just looking at trying to write a java wrapper to do the
> > > connection and expose the methods - any thoughts on if this would
> > > work?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Duncan
> > >
> > > On 6/1/06, darryl lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Further to this, the COM object itself must be registered to accept
> > > > remote calls, via DCOM I think.
> > > >
> > > > On 6/1/06, Gary Menzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > [ABN AMRO Morgans run 6 load balanced machines (but through a
> hardware
> > > load
> > > > > balancer).]
> > > > >
> > > > > With regard to the original question of running COM (in any shape or
> > > form)
> > > > > on CF7 (or even CF6 for that matter)...... we have found that since
> the
> > > move
> > > > > to Java (in the first instance in CF6) that not all COM continues to
> > > work -
> > > > > basically (I have been told) because of the CORBA-COM bridging.
> > > > >
> > > > > So - I guess this might have something to do with why it works even
> less
> > > > > reliably in CF7.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the purpose of the COM object that makes it so server
> > > intensive?
> > > > > Have you considered an alternative approach to achieve the same
> result?
> > > > > Possibly using some of the new Asynchronous mechanisms in CF7?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Gary Menzel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/1/06, Patrick Branley < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We need this because we run 10 load
> > > > > > > balanced CF machines,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what the ? thats huge!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the biggest ive heard about in aus is 4 machines ? anyone
> running
> > > any
> > > > > bigger installs than that ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are looking to make the move to CF7.1 from 6.1 and the
> following
> > > > > > > code is proving to be a problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <cfobject action="CREATE" context="REMOTE" server="
> 192.168.0.101"
> > > > > > > type="COM" name="talker"
> > > > > class={C89B6335-B690-11D5-8A14-00D0B790C084}>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In 6.1 CF connects to the com correctly on the other machine and
> we
> > > are
> > > > > > > able to carry out the actions. We need this because we run 10
> load
> > > > > > > balanced CF machines, and the COM program is quite heavy so we
> cant
> > > > > > > install it on all the machines.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On running this code on a cf 7 box I get the folowing:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An exception occurred when instantiating a Com object.
> > > > > > > The cause of this exception was that: AutomationException:
> > > 0x80040154 -
> > > > > > > Class not registered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The error occurred in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\testai.cfm: line 2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 :
> > > > > > > 2 : <cfobject action="CREATE" context="REMOTE" server="
> > > 192.168.0.101 "
> > > > > > > type="COM" name="talker"
> > > > > class={C89B6335-B690-11D5-8A14-00D0B790C084}>
> > > > > > > 3 :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why does this work in 6 and not in 7?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any healp GREATLY appreciated
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duncan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Duncan I Loxton
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Duncan I Loxton
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
>
--
Duncan I Loxton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"cfaussie" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
