Re: [GD-General] scripting via COM?

[Andras B. <and...@gm...>]

Well, yeah, this is not really a game engine, although it's similar. The 
big difference is that with a game engine, one could make a decision 
that it will be scripted with Lua, and be done with it. In this case 
however, customers will probably want to use our rendering services from 
all kinds of different languages, so it would be preferable not to have 
such binding limitations.

Do you have any other ideas, how I could make my objects available in a 
way so it's usable by many languages, yet is simple to implement?


Andras

brian sharon wrote:
> I don't think anyone has pointed this out yet, but COM objects are  not 
> inherently scriptable in and of themselves.  Anything scriptable  by 
> .NET, VB and other such languages has to implement IDispatch.  So  
> adding scriptability to your engine won't be as simple as just  deriving 
> everything from IUnknown.  For starters, I'm guessing that  all your 
> methods that you wish to expose aren't already returning  HRESULTs.
> 
> Trying to implement game engine scriptability through COM Automation  
> has to be just about the most painful way you could go.
> 
> --brian
> 
> On 26 Jan 2006, at 18:07, Andras Balogh wrote:
> 
>> I've heard that you can use COM objects from .NET using some wrapper.
>> My only problem with pure .NET is that not all customers are ready  to 
>> use it. I would like to have a package that you can use from  
>> unmanaged C/C++ as well as from VB, Python, Lua, C#...
>> Also, I definitely want to keep my engine in the unmanaged world.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andras
>>
>> Jon Watte wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to be Microsoft specific (which COM is), then you  
>>> probably would do better supporting the CLR (.NET). It is much  
>>> richer, and there's a wide variety of languages that run within  the 
>>> CLR. The development and debugging tools are also top-notch.
>>> Cheers,
>>>             / h+
>>> Andras Balogh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, I believe that most decent scripting languages have some  kind of
>>>> support to easily call into COM objects. So I was thinking: Wouldn't
>>>> it be the best to just wrap my engine into a COM object, and then  the