On 10/15/05, Kevin Toppenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/15/05, steven mcphelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is only because you chose not to use the functionality that COM offers
> within CPRS.
I don't understand. What functionality am I not using. And I am
talking about COM object that are included into CPRS at compile time.
I guess it is possible that TMemos are COM objects, but I don't think so.
There are many applications that do make extensive use of the
> COM object within CPRS.
Are you talking about applications separate from CPRS that somehow use
COM functionality built into CPRS? Could you give an example?
Without a COM like replacement, those applications
> would loose their appeal. Preserving the COM functionality is one of the
> design criteria that the VA rehosting of CPRS would try to preserve if they
> could. And not only preserve it but enhance it to address known
> short-comings of the existing COM function.
I'm not following you for some reason.
Sorry.
Kevin
