From: MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@...1.dknet.dk>
Date: 2001-11-27T12:07:46+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:26599] Re: Ruby vs. Python: Decisions, Decisions


"MikkelFJ" <mikkelj-anti-spam@post1.dknet.dk> wrote in message
news:3c02f858$0$74785$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk...

> Effectively this means that you can't use the Ruby COM objects in many
> applications.

This came out wrong. I think it is great to wrap Ruby objects in IDispatch.
I was merely pointing out that there are strong arguments for also
supporting native interfaces. Somehow each member function (message) should
be identified with a vtable offset for a given interface. This can for
example be done with naming convention: COM_IStream_0_Read,
COM_IStream_1_Write etc.(or something more elegant). Parsing the names can
map the functions to a standard vtable wrapper implementation. When
IDispatch works most of the hard marshalling work is done. I think it is
comparatively easier to also support native interfaces.

MikkelFJ