On 2/8/10 1:19 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 2/8/2010 05:55, Jacek Caban wrote:
On 2/8/10 3:36 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Even if that's true, it's not a reason to choose wrong architecture.
Let's say we have a WinHttpRequest object that works, it provides similar interface as IXMLHTTP. Why should I use urlmon for that? WinHttpRequest should stay in winhttp, and won't use urlmon.
We don't have, it's impossible. Pluggable protocol is one of the reasons and you can't handle them unless you use urlmon.
What's impossible? Yes, I can't handle pluggable protocol without urlmon, but why do I need it? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why IXMLHTTP needs more than just http.
Using pluggable protocols has visible effect for apps (eg. an app may override http handler or use mime filters), so if native msxml3 uses it, we should use it as well and there is no way around. Also I don't know if native limits requests to http protocol, but (forgetting about its name) there is no reason it can't work for other protocols and you get it for free with urlmon.
Everything IE-related should use it for binding. It's because of plugable protocols, shared wininet session and more. urlmon is not just a wrapper around wininet.
Why IXMLHTTPRequest is IE related? Or you mean that anything that uses internet should go through urlmon?
It is designed to be used by JScript scripts on web pages (although it's not the only use of it).
Ah, so you mean using urlmon enables session sharing within browser context? (I didn't know that) If so, i should use it of course, instead of direct connection.
Yes.
Jacek