Pete, thanks. I am going the "Init" route. But could you tell me why I should DisableCommit for JIT activated objects.
Alan -----Original Message----- From: Peter Foreman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 18 April 2002 15:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Serviced Components and New() --- Alan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am now converting the classes to ServicedComponents for COM+ 1.0 > primarily for transaction support and after several days work now find that > apparently "Classes derived from ServicedComponent do not support > constructors with arguments". Look at IObjectConstruct - this is the COM+ way of doing constructors. It might not be suitable in your case since the arguments are set on a per class basis rather than per instance. > It will be a lot of work to restore a parameterless New() to each class and > then call an ordinary method instead from the instantiated object to set > the properties. Our Web project is fairly large and component classes are > instantiated in several hundred places. > Am I resigned to doing this or am I missing something really fundamental? You've just mentioned the solution! (Remember to DisableCommit inside your Init function for JIT activated objects.) Sadly it's the COM and COM+ way to not have parameterised constructors. You've got 3 solutions that I can think of: 1) Add an Init function. 2) Use IObjectConstruct (by the sounds of it this will be no good to you). 3) Drop COM+. It may be easier to add transactions explicitly in your code. Peter Foreman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
