> this is one reason you need some kind of framing in your protocol
Yep, that was what I was realizing. I've already implement it. Seems to work :)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
From Thu 26 Feb 2009 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Delivered-To: listarchive@realsoftware.com
Received: by 10.100.124.16 with SMTP id w16cs103367anc;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.73.210 with SMTP id r18mr2863524qaj.319.1235681427773;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com>
Received: from advanced107.inmotionhosting.com (advanced107.inmotionhosting.com
[74.124.194.228])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 5si1286844qyk.142.2009.02.26.12.50.27;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 74.124.194.228 is neither permitted nor
denied by best guess record for domain of
realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com) client-ip=74.124.194.228;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 74.124.194.228
is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of
realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com)
smtp.mail=realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=advanced107.inmotionhosting.com)
by advanced107.inmotionhosting.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com>)
id 1LcnAM-0002Xv-PO; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:49:10 -0800
Received: from caiajhbihbdd.dreamhost.com ([208.97.187.133]
helo=webmail1.sd.dreamhost.com)
by advanced107.inmotionhosting.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <robin@lauryssen-mitchell.com>) id 1LcnAM-0002Xp-3f
for realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:49:10 -0800
Received: from webmail.lauryssen-mitchell.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by webmail1.sd.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FBD2C538
for <realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com>;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 91.9.208.108
(SquirrelMail authenticated user robin@lauryssen-mitchell.com)
by webmail.lauryssen-mitchell.com with HTTP;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:
<b7b2d38df81b931d959a1d16a20e6969.squirrel@webmail.lauryssen-mitchell.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D28779E-4693-4FF4-AAAA-0D55561E0C89@declareSub.com>
References: <31becf620902261052y5659605bhbbe2f95720dded5@mail.gmail.com>
<E79EE5A0-0E2A-4EF9-A895-AB0B0DB5276B@great-white-software.com>
<31becf620902261137w216913day15aa030eef975c25@mail.gmail.com>
<8D28779E-4693-4FF4-AAAA-0D55561E0C89@declareSub.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: COM support
From: robin@lauryssen-mitchell.com
To: "REALbasic NUG" <realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10
Precedence: list
Reply-To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug@lists.realsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com
Errors-To: realbasic-nug-bounces@lists.realsoftware.com
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any
abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - advanced107.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - realsoftware.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - lists.realsoftware.com
<rant>
Not having COM/ActiveX support is one of the major reasons RB is relagated
to the toybox for me. I only ever develop stuff (non-commercial/personal)
for the Windows platform. For Windows only development RB compares badly
with Visual Studio; even the Express edition is better than RB Personal.
Express has access to COM/ActiveX/.NET, and you can write command-line
apps which RS considers to be another platform for goodness sake!
</rant>
Whew! I needed that :)
Hopefully someone (Paul?) will righteously blast me if I have made any
factual errors in the above!!! Having said that, a major application I
use every single day is written entirely in RB, so it can't be all bad.
Robin
>
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Adam Shirey wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Norman Palardy
>> <npalardy@great-white-software.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think adding COM support would be a pretty quick and definitely
>>>> big win
>>>> for REALbasic.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can assure you it's not a "pretty quick" thing to add full COM/
>>> ActiveX
>>> support
>>
>> "Pretty quick" is a relative term, and I certainly don't equate it to
>> "trivial". However, I've discussed it with Aaron (who has several
>> postings on his website regarding COM and did much of the research
>> while he was at Real), and he asserts it's a reasonably quick fix --
>> though it takes the will to implement it.
>
>
> It's not a question of will; it's a question of resources. These
> days, Real Software doesn't appear to have the resources to even
> support the existing code base. And it's not clear to me that such an
> addition would be a big win for REALbasic. I, for example, don't do
> any Windows development, so it wouldn't benefit me as far as I know.
>
> Charles Yeoamns
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
> <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
>
> Search the archives:
> <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|