Re: [proteowizard-developer] Vendor API redistribution status

[Matt C. <mat...@va...>]

That's good to hear about Waters. Why are we asking vendors to provide 
an "assembly" solution when they have a COM one already? The interop 
wrappers take care of that as well as we can expect for our native C++ 
library. We can even sign it and put it in the GAC, although I'm not 
sure what happens to the COM DLL in that case...

-Matt


Brendan MacLean wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> Yes, I sent another request for update to Sean this weekend along with 
> a pointer to the following issue posted by an Australian AB customer:
>
> https://brendanx-uw1.gs.washington.edu/labkey/issues/home/issues/details.view?issueId=124
>
> Thermo is moving forward, but we heard that they will not be able to 
> support assemblies in the short term.  They have a COM-only solution, 
> but intend to license it freely to us.
>
> I just got a message from Jim Langridge (Waters) today.  He says they 
> agreed recently in a high-level meeting they wanted to support us 
> fully, and he just put me in touch with a developer to help me get 
> through immediate issues that need to be addressed.  So, that seems 
> like good movement.  We'll see how the DACServer.dll issue gets resolved.
>
> Long-term, I'd say things look good all around, but some vendors still 
> may take more energy than others.
>
> --Brendan
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matthew Chambers 
> <mat...@va... 
> <mailto:mat...@va...>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Brendan and Parag,
>
>     I haven't heard from Sean since Brendan's last message, so I assume
>     we're still waiting on waiting for ABI. But where do we stand now with
>     redistributing the Thermo and Waters APIs? And has anybody heard from
>     Waters about the ThreadPool clobbering that Brendan experiences?
>
>     Thanks,
>     -Matt
>