While learning up on COM (just starting) I was wondering when m$ was going to make the COM base funtionality built in to the O/S? So all you COM gurus who've gotten a hold of win-xp... is it there yet?

PS: I have no real plans to purchase XP now... a previous flame threadjust thought I'd see if there was ANYTHING new (& useful to xp).
Posted on 2001-12-10 10:42:59 by rafe
Well gee, since COM was built into windows 95, I'm sure they left it in the package.
Posted on 2001-12-10 21:35:54 by Ernie
OK, that's one for you :grin: but does that mean that all of the low-level gory details are taken care of for by the o/s 'cause i've read that they're not in any of them up thru win2k. I.e. com is more or less an add on to the o/s & not monolithicly (if that's a word) built in.

Consider me a total newbie on this & seeking enlightenment. Right now it's all "book" learning trying to move toward code, so some of these questions WILL be on the stupid side -- & i'm a slow learner to boot -- but you ain't scarin' me off that easy :grin: :grin:
Posted on 2001-12-11 09:44:23 by rafe
LOL, I'm glad you don't scare that easily.

But I do scare easily, especially at world like "monolythically." I have no idea what that means. IF it measer could windows work without COM, yes it can. Can COM work without windows? Well sure it can, you can replace the OS with another one.

But the entire question reminds me of the days when Windows agruments oft started by bashing it for being a thing on a thing.

What I would call 'base functionality' is the ability of the OS API responding to a CreateObject call by scanning the registry for the component, and be the component in process or across the world over a network, returning as valid pointer to it.

However, I have heard since all COM components have certain alike pieces, MS has finally done a little code re-use shrinkage and put certain like routines into the .NET package, even merging VB and C++ base code.

I have no idea if the .NET dlls ship with any OS variant or verion.

So that's the long winded way of saying "umm, I dunno."
Posted on 2001-12-11 19:35:15 by Ernie
I believe there will be a future Windows.NET that ships with .NET framework. MS seems to be positioning itself on top of .NET to abstract a large chunk of their business away from the single PC software program (ie monolithic) mentality.
Posted on 2001-12-11 20:49:04 by bitRAKE
I haven't really made up my mind if adding COM to the kernel (well, as defined by MS) is good or bad. I haven't learned enuf yet to make even an uninformed opinion or ask intelligible questions. However, I tend toward the microkernel spectrum so maybe I shouldn't want it there ... then again the MS put just about EVERTHING into the o/s proper & to be consistant... so i'm chasing my tail here.

.NET! ohh nooo! not another acronymn i'm going to have to learn :grin: I was using the made up word in the kernel sense but your point about distributed computing is well taken & probobly (OK definitely) more relevant here.
So what is .NET? some sort of uber-DCOM? I tried looking at the m$ site for real info on it but all found was "Rah! Rah! Go team go! Yaaaay .NET!"
Posted on 2001-12-12 07:48:37 by rafe