On 11/08/2014 11:18, Jim Starkey wrote: > Since plugins pretty much need to be compiled with the same compiler as the > engine,
Hum?? > and since both COM objects and their clients will be compiled from the > machine generated interface defintion headers, there is no danger of > incompatibilities even if there are compilers incompatible with standard IDL > compilers, which I seriously doubt. So, nobody should rely on undefined behavior, i.e., COM components must also manually generate vtables to be OK, specially if you're implementing "non-Windows COM" (something which does not exist). > You are arguing that a 25 year old industry standard, widely adopted > technology is unsafe but a crude, home-brew quasi-OO interface is not. I > don't find your position convincing. > > Why don't you just say that you don't like COM because it wasn't invented > here? > > The UTF-8 issue must be dealt with, certainly. I am in a part of the world > without practical web access and will soon be out of even email. But when I > get back to civilization and bandwidth, I will be happy to brush up on the > latest. > > So far, the arguments I've heard against COM are mostly failures of > understanding, not COM deficiencies. Oh, there is the argument that Firebird > developers aren't good enough to handle immutable interfaces. That I reject > out of hand. Hundreds of thousands of developers have learned to cope with > stable interfaces. Probably more. > > COM is full of problems: - UTF16 - HRESULT with TLS access to errors - No real OOP, just object composing with QueryInterface - Ref. counting for all sorts of objects Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
