How Else to Interact with Browser (wasRe:RevolutionWebBrowserPlugin)

[Dar Scott]

On Nov 6, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Andre Garzia wrote:

> I completely agree with you on that one, we need a new foreign  
> function interface so that skilled developers can write interfaces  
> with existant c code, or frameworks or com objects  or whatever in  
> an easy sane way.

I created an interface for DLLs including system DLLs (almost ready  
for PPC frameworks).  I tried to make it tolerant, requiring only a  
minimum of knowledge of C types, close to xTalk as I could.  I  
failed.  I sent a simple version (C structs) to "alpha" testers.  The  
response from alpha testers was completely underwhelming.  (This  
robustly handled several calling methods, but did not include C++  
names.)

Perhaps COM+IDL or Automation would be an easier level for  
Revolutionaries.  With those, the user (or techy friend of user)  
would not need to define the functions.  It might be possible to  
unmunge some C++ names and infer function types from that.

Perhaps the "skilled developer" who can use such an interface is the  
same one who can build externals.  For most externals, I now use a  
simplified proto-SDK that makes building externals easier and I hope  
safer; maybe we need more of that.  Also, I think the Externals SDK  
now comes with a helper stack for starting projects.  (I had already  
started tinkering with my method so I haven't explored that.)

Perhaps I need a broader base of early examiners or I didn't support  
them right.

I've been thinking of a simple variation that would create Rev  
interface commands and functions.  Maybe that would be easier.  It  
might also be faster.

Another alternative might be a tool where one can quickly go though a  
DLL or Framework document and make Rev friendly interfaces and  
document those.  This might handle COM when an IDL file is available  
or even Automation.

It would be nice to have an enhanced external interface, though.

Dar