Re: System-wide hooking, VB+ASM

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:18:29 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

¤ Paul Clement wrote:
¤ > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:44:49 -0600, "Jonathan Wood"
¤ > <jwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
¤ >
¤ > Jonathan,
¤ >
¤ > ¤ > You may be able to find any number common attributes, in
¤ > particular
¤ > ¤ because we're talking about a
¤ > ¤ > type of Windows PE, specifically a DLL.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Exactly.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ > However, for whatever reason, you seem to want to
¤ > ¤ > marginalize the differences in the implementation between a COM
¤ > and
¤ > ¤ non-COM DLL.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ No, I just know that adding COM functionality to a DLL does not
¤ > change the
¤ > ¤ underlying architecture. It only adds something more.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Interesting point,
¤
¤ The very one I made earlier, btw.
¤
¤ > but with respect to Visual Basic, COM *is* the
¤ > underlying architecture that has been implemented.
¤
¤ No, COM is the *overlying* architecture, added for VB's benefit.
¤

Since COM represents a binary-standard infrastructure and architecture in an
integrated implementation, in addition to external supporting features, you
can't exactly describe it as overlying. It is not wrapper functionality if that
is what you are implying. If you don't believe me then check out the Component
Object Model specification.

¤ > ¤ > I think it's rather obvious that an ActiveX DLL doesn't implement
¤ > the same
¤ > ¤ standard Windows DLL
¤ > ¤ > calling convention.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Well, the underlying architecture implements exactly that when
¤ > exporting COM
¤ > ¤ functionality. Only by using a high-level language such as VB is
¤ > that hidden
¤ > ¤ from us.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Once again, it's the COM implementation which defines the underlying
¤ > architecture
¤
¤ LOL! Without the baseline "underlying architecture", COM wouldn't be possible. You
¤ got yer chickens before yer eggs, man.
¤

Incorrect. COM is considered a language-independent binary-level standard unto
itself. The Windows DLL binary standard does not dictate how a COM component is
created.

¤ > and the mechanism by which the functionality is made
¤ > available.
¤
¤ Again, wrong. The functionality is made available by standard exports that, when
¤ called, register the COM elements with the system.
¤

COM doesn't implement standard exports. It implements the COM interface API.
Check the specs.

¤ > The fact that it follows a minimum level of standards for
¤ > a Windows PE doesn't really tell me much,
¤
¤ Clearly.
¤
¤ > ¤ For this thread, it was stated (not by you) that VB DLLs could not
¤ > be used
¤ > ¤ for system-wide hooks because they were not regular DLLs.
¤ > Certainly, in that
¤ > ¤ context, the statement is false.
¤ >
¤ > Can't say I've ever been able to create a system wide hook with
¤ > Visual Basic, so I'm assuming you're referring to using some type of
¤ > extension which enables you to do so.
¤
¤ And here we are, full circle. Why do you think you'd need to use an extension? What
¤ would said extension provide that isn't "in the box" already?

Sounds like a bluff to me. If it's so obvious, please provide a demo, rather
than "beg the question".


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: System-wide hooking, VB+ASM
    ... > ¤ By you. ... create a standard, ... non-COM DLL in Visual Basic. ... but I gave you credit to understand ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.winapi)
  • Re: System-wide hooking, VB+ASM
    ... > ¤> type of Windows PE, specifically a DLL. ... I just know that adding COM functionality to a DLL does not ... > underlying architecture that has been implemented. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.winapi)
  • Re: System-wide hooking, VB+ASM
    ... ¤ Paul, ... ¤> The term in this instance is used to refer to a standard Windows DLL, ... ¤> implements a different mechanism to expose its functionality. ... from it's ability to do any standard things. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.winapi)
  • Re: How do I wait?
    ... ¤ Paul Clement wrote: ... ¤> ¤ Gimme a break. ... You want to dispute that a standard EXE ... since a standard Visual Basic EXE is not thread safe the callback ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: vb 2005 standard question
    ... I understand Microsoft has VB 2005 Express available for download. ... ¤ want to know if there is a standard version of Visual Basic 2005? ... I'm just confused with the Visual Studio and .NET lingo. ... There is no "Standard" version of Visual Basic 2005. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)