From owner-freebsd-advocacy Sun Nov 8 13:31:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA24301 for freebsd-advocacy-outgoing; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:31:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA24296 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:31:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA06116; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:31:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd006072; Sun Nov 8 14:31:19 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA16088; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 14:30:54 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199811082130.OAA16088@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Implementing ActiveX To: netmonger@genesis.ispace.com (Drew Baxter) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:30:49 +0000 (GMT) Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981104132327.00a802f0@genesis.ispace.com> from "Drew Baxter" at Nov 4, 98 01:26:45 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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