My post was not about having a solution for a problem, I just think it's best to have a clear message about what we support and what we don't support ...
And not explicitly marking an assembly as being COM visible or not just leaves users in the dark as to if using NAnt through COM is supported or not ... I agree that we shouldn't modify our classes to allow usage from COM... I would prefer marking all assemblies as not COM visible ... If (and only if) you agree, I'll send in a patch which sets the COMVisible attribute to false for all NAnt assemblies. Thanks, Gert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gert Driesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Nant-Developers (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [nant-dev] COM visibility > It works both ways. If you feel that there is no demand for using NAnt > from COM then there is no need to specifically allow or dissallow access. > We don't mark them COM visible right now - we just don't mark them > invisible. This seems like a non issue to me. > > My view of the com visible attribute is that its used for when you are > explicitly designing your library to be used from COM and want to > provide a clean interface by hiding those types that you don't want to > pass across the COM boundary. > > You say we should make a decision - well I don't think that we should > modify our classes specifically to allow usage from COM ( ie ensure that > there are default constructors ) unless there is demand for that and I > don't think there is. So you feel its necessary to explicitly mark > everything invisible feel free to send a patch. It seems like a solution > without a problem to me but thats just me. > > Ian > > > Hi, > > > > Should all NAnt assembly (and all clasess within these assemblies) > > continue to be marked COM visible ? > > > > Is there really a demand for using NAnt as an COM object ? Has anyone > > ever tried to use NAnt as a COM component ? If so, for what purpose ? > > > > Currently, there are lots of classes that are not usable at all in a COM > > context because they : > > > > - have no default public constructor > > - have static methods > > > > What's the use of making, for example, the NAnt.Win32Tasks assembly > > visible to COM clients ? > > > > In my opinion, we should make a decision on this matter. Personally, I > > think it's of no use to actually mark the assemblies COM visible if > > they're not really usable as COM components, and if we're not planning > > on doing anything to support this. > > > > What do you think about this ? > > > > Gert > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
