New registration-free COM article

I posted the article “SxS Managed COM With Manifest Resource (WinXP and Win2K3)” some time ago and Jason Buxton was interested in applying it to Visual Basic 6.0 client applications. Well, I’ve put together an MSDN article proposal which addresses that question and is a general improvement on the original article.

The new article is called Registration-Free Activation of .NET-Based Components: A Walkthrough and can be found in the Software category of my articles section. I’m planning accompanying articles named “Registration-Free Activation of COM Components: A Walkthrough” and “Registration-Free COM in Web Applications: A Walkthrough.”

Comments (6)

  1. - says:

    Why are you still flogging that dead donkey called COM.

    There are better technologies out there now called UNO and .NET and XML SOAP RPC etc

  2. Steve White says:

    Thanks for your comment.

    Granted, COM has been superceded to a great degree inside the service boundary by .NET and between service boundaries by XSD/SOAP, and I hope no new systems are being built with COM technology where these others would suit. However, COM components exist and will continue to exist for some time to come. COM+ is still a relevant option in some applications. .NET has excellent interop features in order that existing component investments can continue to be used. And SxS allows great new shared infrastructure opportunities and gives a new lease of life to legacy COM.

  3. Yaytay says:

    COM is vastly more useful than .NET, why else would .NET be built on top of it?

    COM has no language constraints, no baggage, no requirement for the process to drag a truly hideous library of poorly designed stuff, no requirement to treat everthing as XML, a much simpler and more efficient secure RPC method, …

    Please don’t stop flogging that dead donkey.

  4. Steve White says:

    So, certainly Enterprise Services could be thought of as being built on top of COM+ in the sense that .NET simply offers a managed interface to the COM+ APIs. But .NET wasn’t built on top of COM, although it definitely benefits from what was learned from designing COM.

    It’s interesting that you cite ‘treating everything as XML’ as necessarily a bad thing. .NET doesn’t do so, but Web Services arguably do. However, the XML needn’t be a stream of UTF-8 angle brackets and roman characters. The infoset of an XML doc can be serialized any way you like in theory. Look out for a binary XML wire format in Indigo.