InstallShield and ole question...
mbond at cox.rr.com
Fri Apr 27 22:00:45 CDT 2001
From: "Jeremy White" <jwhite at codeweavers.com>
> juergen.schmied at debitel.net wrote:
> > For local marshalling we could use our own protocol and even our own way
of ipc if we don't try to mix processes with native and wine com-dll's. It
com server is only interested in the result ;-). And isn't the com
marshalling similar to the dce one?
> > For networking - the dcom protocoll is documented (IMHO).
> With COM, the other issue is that someone needs to look at the MS
> in this area. Mainsoft is telling people that they can't use Wine to
> port COM code, because Microsoft holds patents on some of the Vtable
> logic used
> in COM (and no, I don't have any more detail than that, this came to me
> third hand).
> I've also asked the FSF for help tracking this FUD down and refuting it.
That would be unfortunate, I would like to hear more about what you find out
> The upshot of my comment is that it's critical that we use our own
> marshalling/ipc protocol.
The only problem with this is that CLSCTX_REMOTE_SERVER would then be
limited to connecting only to other Wine apps, which could be fairly
crippling. If, on the other hand, there is a way to work around these
patents, then it would probably be best to not implement the protocol twice.
It may well be better to wait a bit and hear the FSF response.
> DCOM is documented, and what's more it appears to be well documented,
> and what's more, it doesn't look as though the implementation will
> be particularly hard...
Yes, DCOM is very well documented.
More information about the wine-devel