 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I spent an afternoon reading about DDE, COM, COM+, DCOM, OLE, DCE/RPC,
MSRPC and many other things that I can't even remember the name of now.
All of which make virtually no sense at all.
Can somebody explain to me what all this stuff is meant to be for?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:48:27 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I spent an afternoon reading about DDE, COM, COM+, DCOM, OLE, DCE/RPC,
> MSRPC and many other things that I can't even remember the name of now.
> All of which make virtually no sense at all.
>
> Can somebody explain to me what all this stuff is meant to be for?
IPC. HTH. HAND. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:47263a47$1@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:48:27 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
>> I spent an afternoon reading about DDE, COM, COM+, DCOM, OLE,
>> DCE/RPC,
>> MSRPC and many other things that I can't even remember the name
>> of now.
>> All of which make virtually no sense at all.
>>
>> Can somebody explain to me what all this stuff is meant to be
>> for?
>
> IPC. HTH. HAND. :-)
>
> Jim
P.s. mutex trafficking
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I spent an afternoon reading about DDE, COM, COM+, DCOM, OLE, DCE/RPC,
> MSRPC and many other things that I can't even remember the name of now.
> All of which make virtually no sense at all.
>
> Can somebody explain to me what all this stuff is meant to be for?
Cross-process object-oriented calling. Basically, remote procedure
calls and everything you need to do it "right" instead of half-assed.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Cross-process object-oriented calling. Basically, remote procedure
> calls and everything you need to do it "right" instead of half-assed.
OK. So... if I actually knew how to do all this stuff, what useful
things could I do with it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> Cross-process object-oriented calling. Basically, remote procedure
>> calls and everything you need to do it "right" instead of half-assed.
>
> OK. So... if I actually knew how to do all this stuff, what useful
> things could I do with it?
It's the fundamental technology that Windows parts use to talk to other
Windows parts. You could write a program that starts up Word and Excel,
loads a spreadsheet, clips a range out and pastes it into your Word
document. You can take a blob of code that someone wrote to manage
calendars, and a blob of code that someone wrote to manage email, and
paste them together to make an email-sending reminder applciation. You
can write components for (for example) decompressing your compressed
movie stream, and plug them into Windows Media Player without having to
recompile either one. It's used for everything from plug-ins,
specialized widgets, active agents running in the background,
distributed processing, and embedded programming languages for
applications.
It's basically library++, "active" libraries that can run by themselves
as independent components.
It's "component" stuff, which I don't think Linux ever really got around
to implementing, or at least not using in any sort of consistent way.
You use it to do all the sorts of things you use IPC for (pipes,
sockets, etc) in Linux land.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Cross-process object-oriented calling. Basically, remote procedure
>>> calls and everything you need to do it "right" instead of half-assed.
>>
>> OK. So... if I actually knew how to do all this stuff, what useful
>> things could I do with it?
>
> It's the fundamental technology that Windows parts use to talk to other
> Windows parts. You could write a program that starts up Word and Excel,
> loads a spreadsheet, clips a range out and pastes it into your Word
> document. You can take a blob of code that someone wrote to manage
> calendars, and a blob of code that someone wrote to manage email, and
> paste them together to make an email-sending reminder applciation. You
> can write components for (for example) decompressing your compressed
> movie stream, and plug them into Windows Media Player without having to
> recompile either one. It's used for everything from plug-ins,
> specialized widgets, active agents running in the background,
> distributed processing, and embedded programming languages for
> applications.
>
> It's basically library++, "active" libraries that can run by themselves
> as independent components.
>
> It's "component" stuff, which I don't think Linux ever really got around
> to implementing, or at least not using in any sort of consistent way.
>
> You use it to do all the sorts of things you use IPC for (pipes,
> sockets, etc) in Linux land.
>
Let me add some: things like showing custom thumbnails for a file format
(like Windows does by default for pictures) is done by implementing a
COM interface. explorer.exe will tell your COM object to generate the
thumbnails.
Same for adding items to the context menu, and to the drag context menu
(like WinZIP and other file archivers do, right-drag a zip and it will
have an "extract here" along with the default "move here" and "copy here").
Adding toolbars to explorer and/or Internet Explorer uses COM too, so
there's a technology advertisers know well[1].
Embedding and linking objects in Office documents uses OLE, which is
based in COM. I think WordPad is a program Microsoft used to test OLE
mechanisms, then they decided to release it.
Guess what ActiveX is based on.
[1] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/brownpau/friends_ie.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> [1] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/brownpau/friends_ie.jpg
Holy toolbars, Batman!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> [1] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/brownpau/friends_ie.jpg
> Holy toolbars, Batman!
Problem is, it is possible to get the same effect in Firefox.
Incautious/computer-unsavvy people don't care what browser they're
using, they'll still wreak havoc on their machine. :P
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> OK. So... if I actually knew how to do all this stuff, what useful
>> things could I do with it?
>
> It's the fundamental technology that Windows parts use to talk to other
> Windows parts. You could write a program that starts up Word and Excel,
> loads a spreadsheet, clips a range out and pastes it into your Word
> document. You can take a blob of code that someone wrote to manage
> calendars, and a blob of code that someone wrote to manage email, and
> paste them together to make an email-sending reminder applciation. You
> can write components for (for example) decompressing your compressed
> movie stream, and plug them into Windows Media Player without having to
> recompile either one. It's used for everything from plug-ins,
> specialized widgets, active agents running in the background,
> distributed processing, and embedded programming languages for
> applications.
So... would it for example be possible to write some gizmo that enables
you to insert a mathematical formula into a Word document without Word
crashing? (Or an organisation chart, for that matter?)
Could you write a plugin for Excel that draws some new kind of chart? Or
maybe be able to write macros in Haskell instead of VisualBasic? (You
know how normally you can write a macro in VB and then use it as a
normal function in cells of the spreadsheet? Well, what if you wanted to
use Haskell instead? Is that possible, technically?)
> You use it to do all the sorts of things you use IPC for (pipes,
> sockets, etc) in Linux land.
When I develop things that have to talk to each other, I generally just
use TCP. (Because almost all programming languages know how to do it. As
a somewhat nice side effect, it also makes it possible to run components
on seperate machines.) I have no idea what the overhead is though.
(Before now I've written some code in one programming language, then had
it use TCP to talk to a Tcl script to provide a front-end. Damn, if only
there was 1 programming language that had *all* the features I need...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
