>In the registry situation, it probably would get faster than what you have
I meant wouldn't
:c)
----------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: "Chris"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE:Re: RE:RE: [IMail Forum] ServerObjects ASP Mail
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 9:55:11 -0500
>In the registry situation, it probably would get faster than what you have
>done. But in a socket situation it's different. As an example, try using
>C++ to access a socket via a COM object. Then compare that to writing
>directly to the winsock API. The speed and flexabilty are VERY evident.
>When using a COM object, you have the added overhead from Microsofts COM
>layer that is used to communicate with all COM objects:
>CODE -> MS COM LAYER -> COM OBJECT -> WINSOCK -> MAIL SOCKET
>
>Coding directly to the Winsock API, you have fewer layer, hence more
>flexability and speed:
>CODE -> WINSOCK -> MAIL SOCKET
>
>If you had an Imail API, the benifits would be even more noticable:
>CODE -> IMAIL API
>
>Obviously the examples are over simplified, but you get my point.
>
>And I agree totally that you can't be sure that the COM object that you are
>using are reliable. Although I have found that alot of companies that
>release objects are pretty knowledgable about thier field, so the object
>turn out to be pretty good.
>
>If one chooses to use COM objects, then I would suggest two very good
>companies:
>http://www.quiksoft.com
>http://www.distinct.com
>
>Those two seem to be the best of the bunch.
>
>Again... IMHO,
>Chris
>----------------------------------------------
>Original Message
>From: "Rubens Altimari"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: RE:RE: [IMail Forum] ServerObjects ASP Mail
>Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:30:54 -0300
>
>>>Actually, accessing the Imail sockets via a 3rd party com object, and and
>>API access to the Imail core are two COMPLETELY different things. I can't
>>speak for everyone here, but I want API access so I can directly
manipulate
>>any and every part of Imail. I believe that using a 3rd party COM can be
>>very useful, but it wouldn't compare to the speed and flexibility of a
>>direct API. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that those
>>who compare a socket component to an API have a great misconception of
what
>>an API is.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you, but for a different reason: I don't think that an
API
>>might have more "speed or flexibility". I, for instance, developed a
system
>>to administrate IMail by means of accessing the registry directly, with a
>>C++ program, and I doubt it can get any faster or flexible than this. The
>>real problema is, if it's a 3rd party, there is no guarantee that it's
>>accurate, secure, robust or reliable enough!
>>
>>Rubens
>>
>>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>>to be removed from this list.
>>
>
>Chris Terrebonne
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.myownemail.com
>
>_____________________________________________
>Free email with personality! Over 200 domains!
>http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
>
Chris Terrebonne
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.myownemail.com
_____________________________________________
Free email with personality! Over 200 domains!
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
