 |
BorlandTalk.com
Borland discussion newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Patrick McConnell
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:13 pm Post subject: .NET and Embedding |
 |
|
A. I don't know where to ask this so I figured here I would be least likely
to break any rules.
B. I have a BCB app that embeds in Word via OLE. This is full-on in-place
activation, viual editing and all that. What happens to this with .NET? I
heard embedding wasn't part of .NET, or was replaced with something else.
C. Thanks
Patrick
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tim Anderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:50 am Post subject: Re: .NET and Embedding |
|
|
"Patrick McConnell" <p.mcconnell (AT) elisenGuessWhatThisIsFor (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:3fc7bb0b$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...
| Quote: | A. I don't know where to ask this so I figured here I would be least
likely
to break any rules.
B. I have a BCB app that embeds in Word via OLE. This is full-on in-place
activation, viual editing and all that. What happens to this with .NET? I
heard embedding wasn't part of .NET, or was replaced with something else.
|
It's not in the current .NET (without a lot of hackery), but is back in the
forthcoming "Whidbey" version (2004).
Tim
Free html editor for .Net:
http://www.itwriting.com/htmleditor/index.php
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick McConnell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: .NET and Embedding |
|
|
"Tim Anderson" <Timjand (AT) hot_m_ail (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | "Patrick McConnell" <p.mcconnell (AT) elisenGuessWhatThisIsFor (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:3fc7bb0b$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...
A. I don't know where to ask this so I figured here I would be least
likely
to break any rules.
B. I have a BCB app that embeds in Word via OLE. This is full-on
in-place
activation, viual editing and all that. What happens to this with .NET?
I
heard embedding wasn't part of .NET, or was replaced with something
else.
It's not in the current .NET (without a lot of hackery), but is back in
the
forthcoming "Whidbey" version (2004).
Tim
|
I read up on Whidbey on msdn and, AFICT, it has tools to work with the
Office automation stuff, and that "xml data island" thing.
The point is, I have lots of ATL code, which I'm finally getting somewhat
good at. Whither all that? I haven't been able to find anything that says
OLE linking & embedding will go away. But I wonder, because it's all in the
Win32 world. Does .NET have a new way of doing COM?
Patrick
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Diener
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: .NET and Embedding |
|
|
Patrick McConnell wrote:
| Quote: | But I
wonder, because it's all in the Win32 world. Does .NET have a new way
of doing COM?
|
Yes ! Very much like Borland's VCL COM wrappers, .NET wraps COM objects in
..NET framework classes so that dealing with references to COM interfaces are
hidden.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Agricola
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:14 am Post subject: Re: .NET and Embedding |
|
|
"Edward Diener" wrote:
| Quote: | Patrick McConnell wrote:
But I
wonder, because it's all in the Win32 world. Does .NET have a new way
of doing COM?
Yes ! Very much like Borland's VCL COM wrappers, .NET wraps COM objects in
.NET framework classes so that dealing with references to COM interfaces
are
hidden.
|
Isn't this for invoking 'old' COM objects? I thought in .NET COM becomes
obsolete because of the language operatability. You just use the right
Office assembly and use the reflection system to query the interface. For
this Office has to be (partially) ported to .NET of course.
Peter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Diener
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: .NET and Embedding |
|
|
Peter Agricola wrote:
| Quote: | "Edward Diener" wrote:
Patrick McConnell wrote:
But I
wonder, because it's all in the Win32 world. Does .NET have a new
way of doing COM?
Yes ! Very much like Borland's VCL COM wrappers, .NET wraps COM
objects in .NET framework classes so that dealing with references to
COM interfaces are hidden.
Isn't this for invoking 'old' COM objects? I thought in .NET COM
becomes obsolete because of the language operatability. You just use
the right Office assembly and use the reflection system to query the
interface. For this Office has to be (partially) ported to .NET of
course.
|
I agree with you. Also if COM objects have already been ported to .NET
classes, one doesn't have to deal with reflection unless one needs to do
late binding.
However, as you have pointed out yourself in your reference to Office, there
are still many COM objects in existence, especially MS's own COM objects, so
I was essentially answering how one uses those COM objects transparently
under .NET.
I am sure that MS wants developers to use .NET from now on for language
interoperability rather than COM. However, they themselves still use COM for
a great number of their own technologies, and extending many of those
technologies still involves using COM objects. As an example, extending the
Visual Studio .NET IDE environment is done through COM, although they are
quickly porting that to .NET also. I imagine MS will be porting all their
COM technologies to .NET eventually, but it all doesn't happen immediately.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick McConnell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: .NET and Embedding |
|
|
"Edward Diener" <eddielee (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Peter Agricola wrote:
"Edward Diener" wrote:
Patrick McConnell wrote:
But I
wonder, because it's all in the Win32 world. Does .NET have a new
way of doing COM?
Yes ! Very much like Borland's VCL COM wrappers, .NET wraps COM
objects in .NET framework classes so that dealing with references to
COM interfaces are hidden.
Isn't this for invoking 'old' COM objects? I thought in .NET COM
becomes obsolete because of the language operatability. You just use
the right Office assembly and use the reflection system to query the
interface. For this Office has to be (partially) ported to .NET of
course.
I agree with you. Also if COM objects have already been ported to .NET
classes, one doesn't have to deal with reflection unless one needs to do
late binding.
However, as you have pointed out yourself in your reference to Office,
there
are still many COM objects in existence, especially MS's own COM objects,
so
I was essentially answering how one uses those COM objects transparently
under .NET.
I am sure that MS wants developers to use .NET from now on for language
interoperability rather than COM. However, they themselves still use COM
for
a great number of their own technologies, and extending many of those
technologies still involves using COM objects. As an example, extending
the
Visual Studio .NET IDE environment is done through COM, although they are
quickly porting that to .NET also. I imagine MS will be porting all their
COM technologies to .NET eventually, but it all doesn't happen
immediately. |
I have been busting my coconut trying to find if there is a .NET way of
doing linking & embedding, but I can't find any mention of it. I'm not
talking about automation, I'm talking about in-place activation. I almost
get the feeling MS wishes in-place activation would go away for obvious
reasons...they have to host alien applications within their own documents.
Patrick
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
