[Setacl-devel] Language for COM control

[Helge K. <hel...@ne...>]

As already discussed in the forum SetACL is and will be 
written in VC++. There are mainly three reasons for this:

a) SetACL is to run without any additional runtime files. 
Just the EXE (or OCX) is to be needed to use the program. 
Especially larger organizations will never install runtime 
libraries or even the .NET framework on production servers 
just to use a tool.

b) SetACL is to fully support NT4 SP4+, W2k, XP, Windows 
Server 2003.

c) SetACL needs serveral rather complex API functions which 
require pointers (to functions, too) and unicode.

Those three points refer to the main program. I do not 
think, though, that it would make _any_ sense to implement 
other parts in another language. It would be very difficult, 
too, since the main program consists of several C++ classes 
which are _not_ wrapped in a DLL.

Who has experience in building COM controls in VC++ using 
ATL or MFC?

Helge

---- Original message ----
>Datum: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:53:57 -0700
>Von: "Kenneth Courville" <krc...@ms...>  
>Betreff: RE: [Setacl-devel] Still alive?  
>An: "'Helge Klein'" <hel...@ne...>
>
>Sorry for my lack of response.
>
>I've been a little busy lately with the holidays and 
working on becoming
>an MCP.... later MSCE, hopefully.
>
>I don't have a problem with building a COM control for the 
solution.  My
>only limitations would be that I'd have to do it in either 
VB6 or .NET
>with C#.  I know that your code will primarily be in C/C++, 
but I really
>don't have time to learn how to build a COM control in C++ 
at the
>moment.
>
>Con's for VB6
>--------------
>No longer supported by Microsoft.
>No built-in support for C/C++ pointers.
>
>Pro's for VB6
>-------------
>Easy to use, built-in templates for building COM objects.
>Still in active use by the programming community.
>
>Con's for .NET
>--------------
>Having to install the .NET framework and current service 
packs to make
>use of the control.  This might not be too bad, considering 
that it will
>likely be built in to the OS eventually.
>
>Pro's for .NET
>--------------
>Easy to use, built-in templates for building COM objects.
>Supports pointers.
>
>Tell me what you think.  Given the language that you would 
prefer I use
>and the functions that I have to reference, I can certainly 
work on it
>when you're ready.
>