Active X support

[Dar Scott]

Concerning creating a DLL as an ActiveX interface for Revolution...

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