On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 14:01:29 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 July 2016 at 22:30:51 UTC, Adam Sansier wrote:
Um, no, I revived it so that people searching for answers
wouldn't be led astray by idiots who pretend to know
everything.
My word is not COM specification of course, there's the
official documentation and tons of books about COM, what one
prefers, they all say the same thing, one doesn't need to trust
me on that. This one is a particularly good read:
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Microsoft-Programming-Dale-Rogerson/dp/1572313498/ explains all fundamentals of COM.
COM is a model; in practice people pick the parts they need, and
often still call it "COM". I see it used all the time between
components that are built with the same compiler build, and so
can be lax about calling convention. I've also seen cases with
QueryInterface but lacking AddRef and Release, and I've seen the
reverse. All of these were called "COM" by many people. So even
if there's some ISO standard saying that COM must include all
these elements, saying "everything else is not COM" would hinder
communication.
