Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM 
Author Message
 Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM

Hi all!

Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM for TCL?
I don't want to say anything bad about OpTcl and tcom but it seems that no
one of them can work with ADO. I could not find any way to specify omitted
arguments in method invocation in OpTcl so I could not even open a
recordset.

I could open a recordset with tcom but after approximately a hundreed of
database reads TCL interpreter died with C runtime diagnostics about "using
pure virtual class" or something of this kind. If I had not tried to read
from DB the death came after releasing the connection object. Surely there
are serious bugs in this COM implementation.

So does not anybody know a better one?
________________________________
Dmitriy Stepanenko aka Mudropolk

phone:  (38)(06264)1-93-06, local: 41-93-06



Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:23:17 GMT  
 Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM
What about Java? You can probably load TclBlend into your tclsh, then,
use JDBC to access your database?

Or, maybe you can get the JavaBean to ActiveX bridge working to access
ADO (I know this is ar fetched ....)

- Ioi

Quote:

> Hi all!

> Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM for TCL?
> I don't want to say anything bad about OpTcl and tcom but it seems that no
> one of them can work with ADO. I could not find any way to specify omitted
> arguments in method invocation in OpTcl so I could not even open a
> recordset.

> I could open a recordset with tcom but after approximately a hundreed of
> database reads TCL interpreter died with C runtime diagnostics about "using
> pure virtual class" or something of this kind. If I had not tried to read
> from DB the death came after releasing the connection object. Surely there
> are serious bugs in this COM implementation.

> So does not anybody know a better one?
> ________________________________
> Dmitriy Stepanenko aka Mudropolk




Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:44:58 GMT  
 Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM
Back in the old days... I saw a demo from Jacob Levy (Tcl-Sun) where he
was accessing ActiveX controls via Tcl.  It was alpha level
code he said (that was several years ago).... I think the work
may have died in the great divorce... not sure.

I guess the point is.... the code exists.... just may not be public.

Regards,
Chris

Quote:

> What about Java? You can probably load TclBlend into your tclsh, then,
> use JDBC to access your database?

> Or, maybe you can get the JavaBean to ActiveX bridge working to access
> ADO (I know this is ar fetched ....)

> - Ioi


> > Hi all!

> > Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM for TCL?
> > I don't want to say anything bad about OpTcl and tcom but it seems that no
> > one of them can work with ADO. I could not find any way to specify omitted
> > arguments in method invocation in OpTcl so I could not even open a
> > recordset.

> > I could open a recordset with tcom but after approximately a hundreed of
> > database reads TCL interpreter died with C runtime diagnostics about "using
> > pure virtual class" or something of this kind. If I had not tried to read
> > from DB the death came after releasing the connection object. Surely there
> > are serious bugs in this COM implementation.

> > So does not anybody know a better one?
> > ________________________________
> > Dmitriy Stepanenko aka Mudropolk




Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:26:40 GMT  
 Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM

Quote:
> What about Java? You can probably load TclBlend into your tclsh, then,
> use JDBC to access your database?

> Or, maybe you can get the JavaBean to ActiveX bridge working to access
> ADO (I know this is ar fetched ....)

Thank you, Ioi, but the problem is not just in accessing the database as
such. I managed to do it using "tclodbc", but:
1) MS insists that database access through OLE DB providers is more
efficient than through ODBC;
2) and, what is more important, COM is much "wider" technology then ODBC: if
my scripts can  access COM servers they can do almost anything in Windows
environment - and I'd like to have such a possibility.
________________________________
Dmitriy Stepanenko aka Mudropolk

phone:  (38)(06264)1-93-06, local: 41-93-06


Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:40:16 GMT  
 Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM

Quote:

> Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM for TCL?
> I don't want to say anything bad about OpTcl and tcom but it seems that no
> one of them can work with ADO. I could not find any way to specify omitted
> arguments in method invocation in OpTcl so I could not even open a
> recordset.

OpTcl doesn't handle array arguments too.

Quote:
> I could open a recordset with tcom but after approximately a hundreed of
> database reads TCL interpreter died with C runtime diagnostics about
"using
> pure virtual class" or something of this kind. If I had not tried to read
> from DB the death came after releasing the connection object. Surely there
> are serious bugs in this COM implementation.

I'm using tcom+ADO all the time (small recordsets, through). It dies on
connection release OK, every time. I just ignore it :-)

Quote:
> So does not anybody know a better one?

No... you have to fix tcom :-)  it's rather big and STL-based.

Regards,
Alexander Nosenko



Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:04:07 GMT  
 Does anybody know a _really_working_ implementation of COM

Quote:

> 1) MS insists that database access through OLE DB providers is more
> efficient than through ODBC;

MS insisted on a lot of things... I've spent half a year with OLEDB (writing
a custom provider) - use ODBC if you can. OLEDB + ADO are just two extra
half-working layers above simple SQL. In a year MS will invent something
else (ADO++  or  ADO.NET  or RDS.OLEDB  or some other uglyness). MS OLEDB
support is really non-existant, sample code is junk, interfaces are mutating
as fruit flies (1.1 -> 2.0 -> 2.5 -> 2.6), ADO <-> OLEDB interfaces are
undocumented etc etc.
OLEDB is mostly dropped in favor of ADO.

Quote:
> 2) and, what is more important, COM is much "wider" technology then ODBC:
if
> my scripts can  access COM servers they can do almost anything in Windows
> environment - and I'd like to have such a possibility.

Looks like ADO objects are only ones that crash tcom. The rest of COM thing
is working.

Regards,
Alexander Nosenko



Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:14:46 GMT  
 
 [ 6 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. SQL-DMO: anybody has done this?

2. siod, anybody done a Sybase interface for it?

3. Anybody doing anything about serious physics in VRML?

4. Anybody doing CLOS with guile (or scheme)?

5. VHDL COURSE (ANYBODY DONE THIS COURSE?)

6. Anybody done overlapped serial IO in CVF?

7. Anybody doing irc-stuff with Python / status of irc-modules for Python

8. shar in TCL: TCLAR? Has anybody done it

9. Anybody done this before?

10. Anybody know of good compression / zip library

11. PL/PC - Anybody know about the current status

12. Does anybody know 'Enfin'?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software