--- In [email protected], Oleg Sivokon <olegsivo...@...> wrote: > > Hehe, I still think that ActiveX was a better idea :) I was against that > technology once, but here's my way of how I learned to understand the > intention of it and why do I think it wasn't that bad: > VIM (a code editor) may be compiled on windows, although it's a console > application, so far gVIM exists I thought it should be possible to stick the > editor window to a Windows form if, say, I can get VIM in a shape of COM > object. I then learned from VIM sources, that it was once been able to do > that - it had an option to be compiled with OLE support. These days OLE is > an obsolete technology, and there isn't much help on it if you will search > MSDN. Any place you come across OLE it would say that ActiveX is the > successor and you should use it instead. Reading more on this subject, gives > you better understanding of the intention of why it was developed (I don't > think it was developed in a very friendly way btw). But, one thing sure - > the intention was to design an interface for a foreign program to run inside > and communicate with Windows program. Explorer is just a particular case. > It was relatively easy to conform to OLE requirements when not using MS > tools - that's why VIM has it, but it became increasingly difficult to > conform to ActiveX requirement. Well, ActiveX is more feature reach and more > advanced in other regards, but it's not achieving its goal because it didn't > became a standard interface for linking and embedding :) > If you want the analogy in Flash world - think of a pure AS3 code > cooperating with Flex framework. A straight forward example - make your > display object be a valid candidate to be added into Flex display list - > implement IUIComponent... yeah, right, I would give up doing this, it's to > much work and most of it, if not all you don't want to do. I don't think > that Flex engineers have thought about it in this aspect, and I think that > MS engineers spoiled a potentially good idea by poor implementation... > Bottom line: I would be much happier to see MS coming up with some > alternative to ActiveX, then wasting time on HTML5. Maybe they need HTML5 to > not to loose in the browsers battle (because of marketing / advertising and > so on), but as I've said in another post, I don't see it as a way internet > wants to be in the future. HTML5 is just another "swine flu", which is given > way much more attention than it's worth IMO.
That's a very good point. Most of the time, when I am using Flex, it's to be used in environments _other_ than the browser. If the Flash Player were not an ActiveX control, I couldn't do that. -Amy
