|
|
|
date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:16:54 +0100,
group: microsoft.public.platformsdk.com_ole
back
RE: DCOM without AppID value under CLSID (e.g. wrapper?)
Hello Gerry,
From your post, my understanding on this issue is: you wonder how to
consume a COM object that is not registered as COM+ from a remote client
machine. If I'm off base, please feel free to let me know.
Because you mentioned it is impossible for you to register the COM object
as COM+ in the server, I think the only method is to write a COM+ wrapper
for the COM object, in other words, I agree with your 3rd solution:
"create a wrapper object on the remote machine, and use this new class to
call the old class? The new class would have an AppID and set security."
I don't think the second solution, CLSCTX, helps because the prerequisite
of the remote execution context for CoCreate calls with the set of CLSCTX
is that the component should support remoting.
Please let me know if you have any other concerns, or need anything else.
Regards,
Jialiang Ge (jialge@online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
Microsoft Online Community Support
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
msdnmg@microsoft.com.
==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:33:47 GMT
author: (Jialiang Ge [MSFT])
Re: DCOM without AppID value under CLSID (e.g. wrapper?)
Hi Jialiang Ge,
Thanks for the help with this.
> From your post, my understanding on this issue is: you wonder how to
> consume a COM object that is not registered as COM+ from a remote client
> machine. If I'm off base, please feel free to let me know.
My understanding is that you can a enable a classic COM class for DCOM
(remote access) by creating an AppID for it, but this is NOT the same as
COM+
?
> Because you mentioned it is impossible for you to register the COM object
> as COM+ in the server,
How would I try to do this?
> I think the only method is to write a COM+ wrapper
> for the COM object, in other words, I agree with your 3rd solution:
> "create a wrapper object on the remote machine, and use this new class to
> call the old class? The new class would have an AppID and set security."
Can you give more details on how I would actually do this? I don't mean
every line of code, just the steps I'd need to perform. I'm especially
interested in how to obtain a remotely accessible pointer in the wrapper
object as if it was the pointer from the inner object?
> I don't think the second solution, CLSCTX, helps because the prerequisite
> of the remote execution context for CoCreate calls with the set of CLSCTX
> is that the component should support remoting.
OK, that makes sense, otherwise it would open a lot of security doors.
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:16:04 +0100
author: Gerry Hickman am
Re: DCOM without AppID value under CLSID (e.g. wrapper?)
Hello Gerry,
We can generally do the wrapper for the existing COM in two ways:
1. Containment
2. Aggregation
Suppose the old COM component is A, and the new one is B.
Containment means that, inside B, we have an internal reference to an A
object, and define all the functions available from A in B. In these newly
defined functions, we simply redirect the calls to the corresponding
function in A object.
Aggregation means that, we return A when users query interfaces, so all the
calls will be directly sent to A.
To make it clearer, I find serveral codeguru article:
Containment and Aggregation
http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/com-tech/atl/article.php/c3579/
Containment and Aggregation in DCOM
http://www.pantheon.com/journal/dcom.htm
I also recommend the book "Inside COM", which discusses Containment and
Aggregation in detail in Chapter 8.
I personally think the implementation of Containment is easier than
Aggregation and a sample of Containment is as follows:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/COM/Containment.aspx
You can follow this sample to write the new COM, then register it as DCOM
so that you client machine can call it.
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246054)
Regards,
Jialiang Ge (jialge@online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
Microsoft Online Community Support
=================================================
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
msdnmg@microsoft.com.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
=================================================
date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:25:09 GMT
author: (Jialiang Ge [MSFT])
Re: DCOM without AppID value under CLSID (e.g. wrapper?)
Hi Jialiang Ge,
Thanks, this is very helpful. I'll have a good look at all these
articles and the book. I saw an preview chapter of "Inside COM" and it
does look very good.
> Hello Gerry,
>
> We can generally do the wrapper for the existing COM in two ways:
> 1. Containment
> 2. Aggregation
>
> Suppose the old COM component is A, and the new one is B.
> Containment means that, inside B, we have an internal reference to an A
> object, and define all the functions available from A in B. In these newly
> defined functions, we simply redirect the calls to the corresponding
> function in A object.
> Aggregation means that, we return A when users query interfaces, so all the
> calls will be directly sent to A.
>
> To make it clearer, I find serveral codeguru article:
>
> Containment and Aggregation
> http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/com-tech/atl/article.php/c3579/
>
> Containment and Aggregation in DCOM
> http://www.pantheon.com/journal/dcom.htm
>
> I also recommend the book "Inside COM", which discusses Containment and
> Aggregation in detail in Chapter 8.
>
> I personally think the implementation of Containment is easier than
> Aggregation and a sample of Containment is as follows:
> http://www.codeproject.com/KB/COM/Containment.aspx
> You can follow this sample to write the new COM, then register it as DCOM
> so that you client machine can call it.
> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246054)
>
> Regards,
> Jialiang Ge (jialge@online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
> Microsoft Online Community Support
>
> =================================================
> Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
> suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
> feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
> provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
> msdnmg@microsoft.com.
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> =================================================
>
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:43:23 +0100
author: Gerry Hickman am
|
|
