On 10-08-2014 15:29, Jim Starkey wrote: > It has been pointed out that the client and plugin APIs are used by different > types of developers for different purposes. You didn't respond, so it's hard > to know whether you disagreed, didn't understand the point, or just didn't > care. > > There is no benefit to forcing two completely different interfaces into one. > > If you are still reading, do you have anything to add to the idea of using > COM as the plugin interface? I elaborated on that recently. You didn't > respond, so it's hard to know whether you disagreed, didn't understand, or > just didn't care. > > To save you the trouble of looking up the post, a COM object can support any > number of interfaces each of which is immutable. This means that every type > of plugin can have a distinctive and use-appropriate interface. And, if > requirements change, additional interfaces can be added for full forward and > backward compatability. COM, incidentally, in implemented in the object > itself and requires no runtime. >
It does not make any sense to write a COM-plugin that could just say, "hey, I'm a plugin" and do nothing. You and Dimitry S. are writing opinions totally out-of context, unfortunately. Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
