New topic: "interface not supported"
<http://forums.realsoftware.com/viewtopic.php?t=31358> Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] Previous topic | Next topic Author Message Charliem Post subject: "interface not supported"Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:38 pm Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:37 pm Posts: 131 Location: Rocksprings, WY Hello everyone, With the latest version of RB and using Active X controlls from IOcomp I get a "Interface not supported" error. In versions of RB before 2009R4 I did not have any problems.So what changed? _________________ Regards Charlie M. Running RB2009 R2 on XP Professional Top Charliem Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:02 am Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:37 pm Posts: 131 Location: Rocksprings, WY I did some looking in the bug report and seems that Support for activeX controlls is deminishing.It also seems that I am not the only one with problems with activeX controlls.Could someone from RS post on this comment please? _________________ Regards Charlie M. Running RB2009 R2 on XP Professional Top timhare Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:11 pm Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:21 pm Posts: 6882 Location: Portland, OR USA Diminishing? I thought it was the opposite. There was recently a big push to improve it. Top Charliem Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:23 pm Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:37 pm Posts: 131 Location: Rocksprings, WY Hi Tim, Well it seems that sence 2009R4 none of the activeX controlls I use work.If I go back to 2009r3 all works ok.I am not the only having troubles with this. _________________ Regards Charlie M. Running RB2009 R2 on XP Professional Top timhare Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:34 pm Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:21 pm Posts: 6882 Location: Portland, OR USA I don't use ActiveX, so this is all anecdotal, but I seem to recall a lot of discussion about activex support around that timeframe. Sounds like they did make changes which should have been an improvement, but either require changes in your implementation, or have had unintended effects. I cannot speak for REAL Software, but I believe their intention is to increase support for ActiveX/COM rather than decrease it. Maybe the changes they've made in preparation for Cocoa have introduced a problem. Top Steve Garman Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:44 pm Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:53 pm Posts: 3144 Location: England timhare wrote:I cannot speak for REAL Software, but I believe their intention is to increase support for ActiveX/COM rather than decrease it.I believe that too for the future. See feedback://showreport?report_id=10183 _________________ Steve Garman Using REALbasic 2008r2 Professional on Windows Vista Ultimate and REALbasic 2009r4 Professional on Linux Ubuntu 9.04 Desktop Occasional blog Top hotzenplotz Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:25 pm Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:01 pm Posts: 1 I have the same problems with my ActiveX/COM controls. On Windows Vista. Top Charliem Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:35 pm Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:37 pm Posts: 131 Location: Rocksprings, WY What was wrong with the active x support before 2009R4? All my controls worked fine. _________________ Regards Charlie M. Running RB2009 R2 on XP Professional Top brisance Post subject: Re: "interface not supported"Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:57 pm Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:38 am Posts: 25 Quote:Tom Russell Is it difficult for Realbasic to fully support ActiveX from your perspective as a former engineer? Aaron Ballman ActiveX is such a squiggly topic because the feature depends entirely on the person you ask. You also have to keep in mind that the technology has had about twenty years to accrue all sorts of terrible edge cases. But I do think that REALbasic sort of did things backwards with ActiveX ActiveX is built on top of COM so having support for ActiveX without support for COM, while technically possible, is a bit strange because it means you can do some things, but can't do others. For instance, the common one is "why can I use this ActiveX control, but not that part of it?" Well, because REALbasic only supports things which have a type library and implement the IDispatch interface... but that's a rather strange thing to have to explain. It seems arbitrary to the user. I think that getting a good foundation of COM support is certainly achievable, and when it happens, I think ActiveX support will "magically" get a lot better, without actually touching the ActiveX support directly. Full interview transcript on RBDevZone. Top Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] -- Over 1500 classes with 29000 functions in one REALbasic plug-in collection. The Monkeybread Software Realbasic Plugin v9.3. http://www.monkeybreadsoftware.de/realbasic/plugins.shtml [email protected]
