Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:30:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: netmonger@genesis.ispace.com (Drew Baxter) Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Implementing ActiveX Message-ID: <199811082130.OAA16088@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981104132327.00a802f0@genesis.ispace.com> from "Drew Baxter" at Nov 4, 98 01:26:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> How do you call this competitive? They don't give open paperwork for their > "ActiveX" standard, otherwise I'd imagine someone (Maybe even Netscape) > would portal it into Netscape products.. Actually, their ActiveX code is heavily specified; there's little about ActiveX that isn't discussed in the serveral COM and DCOM books out there, and what isn't discussed there *is* available for download from their WWW site. I have to say that I've considered implementing DCOM on FreeBSD once or twice; it's rather trivial to do, since there is an existing DCE RPC implementation. I also have to say that not doing byte swapping on the way in and on the way out for RPC calls between x86 based boxes is a very attractive idea, just from the perspective of what it would do to the NFS performance of FreeBSD to FreeBSD mounts. I actually believe it would be trivial to implement ActiveX into Netscape; I really wouldn't want to become dependent on x86 based code for control implementations, but on the other hand, it's not like it's rocket science. >From hacking on both, I have to say that CORBA is conceptually much more difficult in implementation. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811082130.OAA16088>