Active X support

[Chipp Walters]

It is my understanding, ActiveX support just isn't that easy. For instance,
many ActiveX controls are interface controls...like buttons and sliding
panes, etc.. How do you provide an interface for handling all of this within
the basic MC engine? Not all ActiveX controls are made equal. For instance,
not all ActiveX controls can work within a browser. Their interface isn't a
simple as an XMCD/XFNC. ActiveX controls can draw into windows, receive
messages, even work in threaded modes.

Plus, do you support a full object model with inheritence, etc.? Tuviah,
Chris, Scott or Dar could probably offer a better insight into this -- and
perhaps correct any misconceptions.

We looked at adding thumbprint recognition to a project recently. They had
an ActiveX control, plus they had source code so you could roll your own
DLL...which is what we ended up doing.

I'm not a spokesperson for either MC or RR, but I do support their
cross-platform philosophy. Adding Applescript to the Mac platform is akin to
adding shell support for Linux and PC. Certainly, they don't prevent anyone
from adding an ActiveX DLL. In fact, I have received a lot of support from
Tuviah regarding building DLL's for Windows. That is where the
altBrowser.dll originally started...in Tuviah's hands.

IMHO, I think there are more important things to concentrate on, than
ActiveX (besides, I don't think RR will challenge MS Vbasic and .NET anytime
soon). Support for SSL, along with perhaps a PocketPC port are among my
favorites, though, I also agree a great starter book would help spread the
word. I, for one, hope the focus stays on ALL PLATFORMS, and not on a single
ONE (especially keeping in mind most RR users are Mac users -- though I hope
more PC users will join the party;-)

best,

Chipp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: use-revolution-admin at lists.runrev.com
> [mailto:use-revolution-admin at lists.runrev.com]On Behalf Of
> tkuypers at pandora.be
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Subject: Re: Active X support
>
>
> Hear, hear!!!
> This is what I ment, This is exactly the point I was making!
>
> Well put!
>
> Ton Kuypers
>
>
> > From: "Edwin Gore" <edgore at shinra.com>
> > Reply-To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:46:54 -0700
> > To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> > Subject: RE: Re: Active X support
> >
> > I think people have some widely divergent ideas about what
> constitutes a cross
> > platform development environment.
> >
> > To my mind it should be a case of the anything that you do
> using just RunRev
> > runs anywhere, but at the same time it should actually support
> the platform
> > specific features of different operating systems. That way the
> developer can
> > make informed decisions about how they want to handle cross
> platform issues
> > when RunRev doesn't natively support something.
> >
> > Adding support for Applescript, XCMDs, ActiveX and whatever the
> OS-X/unix
> > equivelents might be doesn't reduce the cross-platform capabiilities of
> > RunRev, it increases it. Those are all important parts of the individual
> > platforms, and if you don't consider support for them, it makes the
> > development system too limited to appeal to developers across
> the board. If
> > you only support the lowest common denominator of what can be
> supported on ALL
> > platforms, you end up with what is a very limited subset of the
> power of each
> > individual operating system.
> >
> > ActiveX is a big part of the Windows architecture these days. There are
> > thousands of controls out there already, and it would be great
> to get access
> > to them. Not being able to makes RunRev much less attractive to
> Windows users,
> > and there are several of them. For Revolution to really succeed
> I think it's
> > important that it support platform specific technologies on
> Windows, Mac, and
> > on Linux, when they are an important part of the operating system. A
> > development system that is best of breed for Windows, Mac, Lijnux AND
> > crossplatform is a much more powerful proposition than one that
> is just the
> > best Crossplatform system, but not really the best for any
> particular system.
> >
> > I think that Revolution did the right thing in creating an
> externals library
> > that supports programmers creating externals that can
> re-compile for other
> > platforms using the same code, but I think that supoorting the externals
> > architectures that the indivual OSs already supoort is just as
> important.
> >
> >> ----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
> >> From: Stephen Quinn Barncard
> >> <stephenREVOLUTION at barncard.com>
> >> To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> >> Sent: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:11:26
> >>
> >> Huh? My post was about inclusion, not taking out
> >> stuff. Please don't
> >> quote my words out of context for your own imagined
> >> conclusions.
> >>
> >> sqb
> >>
> >>>>> Active X -- Great for windoze folks, useless
> >> for Mac and Unix...
> >>>>>  Wouldn't this be against the 'cross platform
> >> concept" of Rev?
> >>>>
> >>>>  Exactly ... I think thera are a lot of "Windoze
> >> only to do everything
> >>>>  but nothing..." tools, imho we dont need
> >> another one...
> >>>>  regards
> >>>>  Wolfgang M. Bereuter
> >>>>
> >>> Hmmmm
> >>> So if you can't have it on the Mac, you don't want
> >> it to be possible on the
> >>> PC as well?
> >>> Then how about killing AppleScript support on the
> >> Mac?
> >>>
> >>> Ton Kuypers
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> use-revolution mailing list
> >> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolu
> >> tion
> > _______________________________________________
> > use-revolution mailing list
> > use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>