On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:56:30 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
Bill Medland (billmedland@mercuryspeed.com) Minor typo correction and term expansion changes
Bill, if that document was helpful I'll write some more docs for you.
On January 10, 2005 11:08 am, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:56:30 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
Bill Medland (billmedland@mercuryspeed.com) Minor typo correction and term expansion changes
Bill, if that document was helpful I'll write some more docs for you.
Hi Mike
It was sort-of-helpful to me. Didn't really teach me anything I didn't already understand but I think it is a good introduction. It lays the groundwork and the nomenclature for further discussions.
Some more advanced stuff might be relevant and useful for getting other people involved.
For myself I am eagerly awaiting a copy of Box's Essential Com; I guess it is a bit old now but I like to read the older stuff that gives an idea of from where things came.
I don't know how much time I personally am going to be able to devote; my boss isn't particularly interested in my devoting company time to it since our code sort-of-works with existing ole32 etc. (and now I also have to keep an eye on .dotGNU and mono too).
The next bit I have to figure out is OXIDs and their marshalling etc. Maybe I'll have some more specific questions when I actually understand the language.
Did we ever get anywhere with adding some sort of DCOM-testing framework into the tests? I can't remember if it was you or Robert that mentioned resurrecting a test program.
Bill Medland wrote:
Did we ever get anywhere with adding some sort of DCOM-testing framework into the tests? I can't remember if it was you or Robert that mentioned resurrecting a test program.
We have a number of marshaling tests in our test framework at the moment (in wine/dlls/ole32/tests/marshal.c). It is hard to do anything cross-process (or cross-machine!) because of the way the test framework is done. Mike did suggest using environment variables to hack around those limitations, but so far that hasn't turned into any code from either of us.
Rob
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:30:16 -0800, Bill Medland wrote:
Hi Mike
It was sort-of-helpful to me. Didn't really teach me anything I didn't already understand but I think it is a good introduction. It lays the groundwork and the nomenclature for further discussions.
Yeah it's all fairly basic stuff.
Some more advanced stuff might be relevant and useful for getting other people involved.
I'll see what I can do later this week.
For myself I am eagerly awaiting a copy of Box's Essential Com; I guess it is a bit old now but I like to read the older stuff that gives an idea of from where things came.
It's new enough. Little uses DCOM, even less uses 2K+ DCOM which is the stuff Box doesn't cover. There are a few mistakes in the book but it's a good grounding.
thanks -mike
-
Bill Medland -
Mike Hearn -
Robert Shearman