Re: [boost] RE: Re: DLL library (Was: Re: additional boost libraries?)
Vladimir Prus wrote:
I know next to nothing about COM, so can't on this idea. In all cases, I think it's a bit beyond the scope.
I have some experience writing applications that use COM. Reading through this discussion makes me wonder if this isn't a re-invention of the COM wheel. I don't know anything about CORBA. I has always presumed it was similar to COM. COM starts out as simple in principle and ends up being very complex. It seems that Microsoft has now rolled up that functionality into Dot Net and no longer promotes COM. I would think a careful study of COM/CORBA would be key to pursuing this line of inquiry. Robert Ramey
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:43:44 -0700, Robert Ramey wrote
Vladimir Prus wrote:
I know next to nothing about COM, so can't on this idea. In all cases, I think it's a bit beyond the scope.
I have some experience writing applications that use COM. Reading through this discussion makes me wonder if this isn't a re-invention of the COM wheel. I don't know anything about CORBA.
This isn't really a re-invention of either -- just a very small library that does something similar to what both do -- without all the baggage. COM is a Windows only option, for example. Both are big frameworks with gobs of stuff not needed to load a dll and call a function. So I don't see this as a reinvention any more than serialization is a reinvention of the MS serialization... Jeff
Jeff Garland wrote:
This isn't really a re-invention of either -- just a very small library that does something similar to what both do -- without all the baggage. COM is a Windows only option, for example. Both are big frameworks with gobs of stuff not needed to load a dll and call a function.
I think that similar motivation drove YAMI project, see http://www.msobczak.com/prog/yami/ B.
Bronek Kozicki wrote:mechanism Garland wrote:
This isn't really a re-invention of either -- just a very small library that does someskeletonsilar to what both do -- without all the baggage. COM is a Windows only option, for example. Both are big frameworks with gobs of stuff not needed to load a dll and call a function.
I think that similar motivation drove YAMI project, see http://www.msobczak.com/prog/yami/
Do you mean "without all the baggage" by "similar motivation"? What I see on the page is still very complex -- some network communication and the like. I want just portable mechanism to access objects from shared libraries. This is much more lightweight than CORBA, which requires IDL, stubs, skeletons, supports talking to objects on other machines, a lots of other stuff. - Volodya
participants (1)
-
Bronek Kozicki -
Jeff Garland -
Robert Ramey -
Vladimir Prus