On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Marco van de Voort wrote: > > > Good, so now we are COM compatible again? This because I am planning to > > > port > > > the OpenOffice bridge. > > > > > > However that uses COM _and_ packages. (though I hope to get rid of the > > > need for pacakges) > > > > How can it require packages ? Packages are just a distribution tool. > > The code itself should in no way refer to packages ? > > I don't exactly know why, but the program doesn't work when you turn > packages off. (note that FPC fails in yet another point) > > I have to inspect it further, but I suspect he defines an own COM component, > which is then registered (which is maybe only possible for a DLL), but at > the same time he doesn't really master EXE-DLL communication (using non > automated), thus made it a package. The source is quite a mess (Clootie's > btw, but earlier work) Sound like a real kludge. Good luck disentangling that one :/ > > That's why I have some hope it can be eliminated. Hmmm. COM is a mess. The openoffice one doubly so, because there is no TLB to import. It's all runtime binding. I had a hell of a time automating it :/ Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
