Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Johannes Schindelin > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 7:17 AM
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Have you looked at WTL / ATL before writing your own wrapper? > No. Mainly because I have no idea how well that works together with > MinGW's gcc. I have a _hunch_ that you are talking about proprietary, > pay-to-use components. Well... Dscho (or his hunch :) is, at least, somewhat right. ATL is a light-weight library that historically used to simplify working with COM objects. However, it comes only with paid editions of Visual Studio. Also, ATL was not very useful in creating applications (GUI), hence they came up with WTL. Luckily WTL is free and open source, but as far as I understood it requires ATL. I do agree that if we used VS (at least, standard edition), we would not need to write any COM-infrastructure code, but it's not happening. > But both things I am unprepared to do. Instead, I wrote a simple shell > extension, _wrapping around_ COM (it is not a COM _wrapper_: that would > mean that you could do everything with it that COM can). As a possible indication that this extension is "elegant code" (as in "very easy to understand and use"), consider this: when recently I had to add COM support to the Console (which is WTL app), I was seriously looking at Dscho's code, because for very long while could not bring up proper ATL classes and objects. My experience with Cheetah and somewhat limited experience with ATL could be a factor. Just my 2 cents. -- Kirill.
