recommend skipping the pain that is the Java-COM bridge and instead use
Black Knight
(http://montarasoftware.com/go/9d58a59e-df02-1157-affb-e87c411e1c8f).
Matt Liotta
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
On Jan 5, 2004, at 6:12 PM, Andrew Scott wrote:
> Hoping someone can help me out here, trying to create a com object with
> Studio .Net 2003. Now I have built the solution and .Net tells me I
> can use
> it in any application and that it is registered. However coldfusion
> can't
> create the object, is there a special trick to get a com object to work
> under CFMX.
>
>
> Any help would be appreciated..
>
> Regards
> Andrew Scott
> Technical Consultant
>
> NuSphere Pty Ltd
> Level 2/33 Bank Street
> South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205
>
> Phone: 03 9686 0485��-��Fax: 03 9699 7976���
>
> ��_____��
>
> From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 10:09 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: WDDX vs raw XML?
>
> I don't think 4 or 5 should pose as a problem. I know I have a WDDX
> solutions that has around 5 or 6 and it works fine. Also you may check
> out
> wddx site and see whatever there is a limit or no limit at all. It
> would be
> strange in my opinion if the limit (if any) was set to something under
> 10.
>
> TK
> ��-----Original Message-----
> ��From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ��Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:05 PM
> ��To: CF-Talk
> ��Subject: WDDX vs raw XML?
>
> ��We have a situation where we need to pass complex data structures
> from the
> ��server to the client, and from the client back to the server.��In the
> past,
> ��I've handled this with WDDX, but am aware of a "quasi" limit to how
> deep
> you
> ��can nest WDDX packets.��Our current app is going to need multiple
> levels -
> ��probably 4 or 5. (i.e. the Base object has a collection which
> contains
> other
> ��objects that contain collections which contains other objects that
> contains
> ��collections, etc....).
>
> ��We've done some brief exploration of the XML functions in CFMX, and
> suspect
> ��this is probably the best choice for complex data like
> this.��However, I'd
> ��like to hear from others in the group to see if there are any other
> ��reasonable alternatives.��(other than creating individual WDDX
> objects for
> ��each possible collection).
>
> ��Any thoughts?��Thanks in advance.
>
> ��Shawn
> ��_____
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
