Re: active x control
- From: "Steven Burn" <somewhere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:08:17 +0100
I've no idea as I don't use .Net (you'd need to ask the .Net'ers about it)
--
Regards
Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk
Keeping it FREE!
"Daniel" <Daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:686F5088-D0F7-4204-9883-BF9648FFA55E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> So if developed using visual studio.net, they don't call it active x control
> any longer? How do they call it instead of active x control? I assume that
> same kind of functionality will be kept as before, such as being used by
> create object in vbscript and passing parameter to it when I call it, etc.
>
> Thanks
> Daniel
>
> "Steven Burn" wrote:
>
> > You'll likely need to use a converter to convert it to .Net code.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > Steven Burn
> > Ur I.T. Mate Group
> > www.it-mate.co.uk
> >
> > Keeping it FREE!
> >
> > "Daniel" <Daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:692AC33F-505D-43F4-85CC-C166684C595A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > If I developed an ocx using visual studio 6, can I use the same code in
> > > visual studio.net?
> > >
> > > I am having trouble downloading cab file when there is revision in ocx or
> > > doc file that ocx is using. It only works when I unregister ocx contol. I did
> > > not sign the code since it will be used by company pc's, not for public.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > "Michael Harris (MVP)" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the reply. I am new to this area. Do you know why
> > > > > microsoft wants to phase com object out? Do they have any
> > > > > alternatives?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My own (strictly personal) take - I don't claim to be an expert...
> > > >
> > > > As COM based technology has evolved over many years, its deficiencies have
> > > > been more difficult, if not impossible, to resolve without effectively
> > > > starting over. One might consider .Net to be that 'starting over'.
> > > >
> > > > While many may consider .Net to represent the future, COM still represents
> > > > the current reality and more importantly, from a future perspective, an
> > > > enormous legacy past. There are plenty of places you can go to participate
> > > > in the ongoing .Net vs. COM debate, with plenty of participants on both
> > > > sides.
> > > >
> > > > Over time, more and more of the COM based technologies will become
> > > > deprecated in favor of .Net alternatives. Like WSH et.al. already have, COM
> > > > based technologies will go into what Microsoft refers to as 'sustained
> > > > engineering' -- meaning (my characterization) where only security holes and
> > > > really bad bugs will get fixed. That does mean existing COM based
> > > > technologies will not be enhanced, but that does not mean that the existing
> > > > COM runtime libraries will disappear any time soon...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Harris
> > > > Microsoft MVP Scripting
> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > > Please ask follow-up questions via the original newsgroup thread.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: active x control
- From: Daniel
- Re: active x control
- References:
- Re: active x control
- From: Daniel
- Re: active x control
- From: Steven Burn
- Re: active x control
- From: Daniel
- Re: active x control
- Prev by Date: Re: Running VBScript code asynchronously?
- Next by Date: HowTo-Check if key (folder) exist when no default value specified (regRead)
- Previous by thread: Re: active x control
- Next by thread: Re: active x control
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
