ActiveX and RR

[K]

I believe the focus on ActiveX is a bit short sighted once RR can make native OS calls (GetProcAddress, LoadLibrary ...) ActiveX, OLE, COM, COM+, CORBA, ImageMagik, PVM are just steps away.  As far as interfacing with Java I see no need to haul a 40+ MB virtual machine around!  The major hurdle is RR would need to invoke each OS call "with messages" and provide a ASM stub for OS callbacks.  I provided this functionality in several languages I wrote (TIL based).  In my case I had a "run mutex" that controled the active "thread" anyone executing a reentrant code (code that did not require the intrepreter) would release the "run mutex" make the call and reaquire upon returning.  In fact all functions in the system that accessed the OS would do this.  Giving the appearence of multi-threading.  My languages actually interfaced with OLE, COM and DCOM (supporting ActiveX was not necessary).

Kevin

NOTE: I would appreciate if someone from RR would explain the design of the RR  low level functions so we (the users) can extend the language.



-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer:

Any resemblance between the above views and those of my
employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely
coincidental. 
Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.

 The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them
is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of
the reader
 is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. 
(A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the
scope of this article.)



 --- On Mon 08/09, Richard Gaskin < ambassador at fourthworld.com > wrote:
From: Richard Gaskin [mailto: ambassador at fourthworld.com]
To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:06:05 -0700
Subject: Re: ActiveX and RR

Mark Wieder wrote:<br>> Richard-<br>> <br>> It's been years since I've used ToolBook, and I no longer remember the<br>> syntax for doing these things, so I went and took a look at the new<br>> web site:<br>> <br>> http://www.sumtotalsystems.com/toolbook/demos/flash/unsupported/unsupported.html<br>> <br>> So far I'm not impressed.<br><br>I'm not suggesting anyone use ToolBook; Rev is smaller, faster, and even <br>the Enterprise version costs less than half as much so there would be no <br>need.<br><br>My only point is that if we're going to explore ways to add optional <br>type declarations to the language we don't need to reinvent that wheel.<br><br>Extra bonus points:  if we use the long-established conventions ToolBook <br>already has for this, it makes it that much easier for those users to <br>switch to Rev if they're as impressed by the new owners as you are. ;)<br><br>-- <br>  Richard Gaskin<br>  Fourth World Media Corporation<br>  ___________________________________________________________<br>  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com<br>_______________________________________________<br>use-revolution mailing list<br>use-revolution at lists.runrev.com<br>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution<br>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!