Re: [DUG]: Dlls. COM and PChars

[Robert martin]

I take it that pChar isn't a 'OLE Automation compatible type ' and that wideString is ?    The reason I was using pChars was to avoid ShareMem.     Rob Martin Software Engineer   phone 03 377 0495 fax 03 377 0496    web www.chreos.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Myles Penlington To: Multiple recipients of list delphi Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:59 AM Subject: RE: [DUG]: Dlls. COM and PChars Sharemem unit? May get around the issue.   Technically only OLE Automation compatible types can be passed via COM objects, unless you do you own marshalling ...   However, If you want to break COM's rules it can be done - however both objects have to be in the same process space - create In process servers etc.   It is simpler to avoid problems and use widestrings if you are uncertain. There is a overhead using them, but do we really care these days - how often is the call done? Unless I was after the ultimate in performance I would prefer the reliability and encapsulation that COM provides - thats (one of) the normal reason for using it in the first place?   Myles. -----Original Message----- From: Robert martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 28 August 2003 09:33 To: Multiple recipients of list delphi Subject: [DUG]: Dlls. COM and PChars I think my usage of PChars may be incorrect.  I have a Com object within and application that has functions that return pChar, a dll that uses this com object sometimes seems to receive only a portion of the text.  It makes no difference if I store the result in a pChar or a String.  Any ideas?   I have avoided this by passing results as WideStrings, is this a good thing?     Rob Martin Software Engineer   phone 03 377 0495 fax 03 377 0496    web www.chreos.com