On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 12:45 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
Your are correct: that is exactly how one would implement ActiveX with MC/RR. Keep it out of the core engine source code.
I agree. Since, I'm basically lazy, I would put a third into an external and do the rest in a library. I'd rather work in Revolution scripts when I can. Besides, it might be easier to get help or insightful wisecracks.
But, as mentioned
previously, it would take some time. Chris estimates about a month
(including testing) for a basic implementation. So, if any individual wants
to commission an ActiveX DLL? (Tuviah could possibly do it also, schedule
permitting).
It would take me longer because of all the little headaches. I know they will drive me batty.
He also said that ActiveX has been mentioned as legacy technology by Microsoft.NET (COM theoretically doesn't exist anymore in the .NET architecture) -- it's unsure how it will be supported in the future...
This is also one of my concerns. I'm already stuck back in the 20th century on most things.
I think Tuviah is right on with his comments. The cost of development + the
cost of support could become very expensive for RR. Let's all remember, RR
is a small company, trying to eek (?) out a living in an area where
traditionally most all others have failed. It is imperative for them to
optimize their development dollars on features which benefit all or most of
their customers.
Yes, and such a call is a hard call.
Ironically, a customer just called a few minutes ago on a COM interface. External? No, they would rather I build a service that converts between some vendor's COM and their proprietary tcp/ip protocols. And tcp/ip? I can do most of that with Revolution as it is.
Dar Scott
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
