throwing this note to say how bad is BCB to build COM Apps and to tell
people ho are looking for a good tool to build COM object:
juste forgot BCB cause::
-the code it generate is not COM compliant
-the TLB it generate hurts the registry(it write anything in it)
-the tlb headers are unuseable.

a lotoff companys of my known banish the use of BCB to build COM apps (it's
better to useVB) but the goodest way is MS Visual +  (sorry to say that but
it's the truth)
however to builde exe sample BCB is not Bad (haha)

so if your project is to build strong COM/DCOM/COM+ apps its better to try
the hardest way (Visual C++)

im saying this today cause of the last tow days of  coding for nothing (Ihad
to reimplente the COM object in Visual C++ and now it work perfectly)

so for all that time i lost (and certaily a lot off people lost) no thanks
Borland .. your job on COM is a big peace of...

Monq,

We have used Builder to implement several COM clients and servers applications
and it's ludicrously easy and works every time.

What do you mean by that? It has to write /something/ into the registry
to register the COM server. For us that's exactly what it does and it does it
correctly.

In what way? We have managed to use them without any problems.

Again, in what way? I'm not a COM expert (that's why I like Builder's COM stuff)
but the code it generates works for us.

Unless you can be more specific the only response I can give to that is to
reiterate the old saying "A poor workman blames his tools". My only criticism
of COM under Builder is that it's a little too easy and I spent time trying to
find out things that I didn't need to know.

If you want to continue this discussion it would be worth posting the version
of Builder you are using as well as being more specific in your complaints.

Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]

first my goal here  is not to find the bugs that let me says that,!!  that
not my job it's Borland's.
second it's only an advice for people ho want to make a real job with COM,
not simply create local inproc servers for desktop apps or for Inproc
anithing else!!

if  you use com as local librarys context it certainly not a probleme (you
can do it as a static lib its faster)

you certainly never try to create a distributed component that use dllhost
and witch registration work with regsvr32( it impossible with BCB)
try them in any C C++ dev environnement they do not work!!

the IDL  file generated is absolutly uncompliant with the standard(the MS
version of IDL is not totaly compliant too but the MIDL compiler build good
tlb's with it, so thats not a problem

with a tool that is harder to use than BCB (only on wizard with Visual C++)
all the contexte implementation work perfectly
and all what les us in trouble with Borland turn to OK when implemented with
MSVC so if that hurt you im sorry but that simply the truth
complaints.
last we use BCB 5 with all patches and it now defenitivly bannish using it
for COM projects
Moncef.M
Midinov

I think the newsgroup has a better chance of helping you out if you had
specific questions. The rant was entertaining, but it's kind of like
saying you know how to drive a Ford well enough to get you there, but
don't use a Fiat because it won't. It doesn't make sense.

Good luck with it.

Monq,

That's true. OTOH if you don't provide specific information how do you
expect Borland to fix those bugs? All you've said is "Borland's COM support
doesn't work". Aside from being somewhat rude there are plenty of people who
can disprove that statement - us for one.

You just posted a message saying "Your programs are {*word*99} and they don't
work". How would you react if one of your customers sent that? I'm sure it
wouldn't help you track down and fix the bugs that the customer was
experiencing and it's quite likely you'd just delete the offending message
and refuse to bother with such a rude person.

Borland don't have a marvelous track record on fixing bugs (FWIW I have
frequently berated them on that and will continue to do so) but posts like
yours don't help one bit. We're all developers here and we all produce code
that is less than perfect.

It's advice that you are perhaps not in any position to give. How would you
like it if I posted a public message on the 'net telling people to avoid
your programs because they are {*word*99}?

Even if you give a specific and detailed description of the problem you
still have no right to tell people not to use another companies product.

<quoting snipped>
This isn't intended to further annoy you but could I just point out that
Borland's newsgroup guidelines do require that you keep your quoting to a
minimum. In your reply to me you requoted my entire message and that wasn't
neccessary.

Thanks.

Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]

Please don't get offended... I don't think it was Andrue's intent to offend
or
insult you.

He 'politely' stated that he didn't run into the same problems you seem to
be describing and was still interested enough (most of us are interested in
learning from other people's experience) to ask you for more detail. I for
one am also more than interested in hearing what exactly you found to be
the problem with Borland's tools, and this is not meant as something to put
you down but as genuine professional curiosity.

Also, I don't believe this statement was meant to insult you but just to
point
out that we are generally used to people flaming against things without
showing anything to back up their claims, and more than often in such
cases they are proven to be wrong. That's one thing you surely noticed if
you've been following posts in these newsgroups. This doesn't mean that
you are doing the same thing here, just that your presentation so far fits
the
pattern and noone is denying you the opportunity to escape that pattern.

Please understand that I am also not a native english speaker and so if any
of my constructs sound rude or offensive know that it was not done
intentionally.

Hope my intent comes across as it was meant to,
    Jurko

P.S. I really am interested in the problems you've had with Borlands
COM support and would be more than gratefull if you could share your
experiences with us.

I have to disagree here.  One of my company's components is a group of COM
objects residing inside a DLL and it works just fine with REGSVR32 as well
as BCB- and non-BCB-based clients using it.

The TLB header file is specifically geared towards BUILDER's usage only,
because it includes VCL helpers.  That's to be expected, its not really
supposed to work across compilers.  Each COM-capable compiler/IDE has its
own way of importing and using COM objects in that particular environment.

Gambit

Andrue Cope,

D'oh! Actually I've just noticed that you had quoted and replied. Newsreader
had a problem with your line length. Sorry about that and thanks for the more
detailed reply.

Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]

Could you please give some specific examples?

Thanks,
Chris

[snip]

I'm afraid I've successfully developed COM servers hosted by the dllhost
with BCB. They were accessed by means of DCOM from MS IIS.

.a

Hi Monq,

Just wanted to let you know that we are still investigating this issue.

Chris

Which issue?

Doh, replied to the wrong thread. Sorry.

Chris