ActiveX (was Win32Lib: making a "List Table"?)
> KAT wrote:
> I have ActiveX turned off in IE5 and i don't run active desktop. Both
> caused me more headaches then they are worth. Both have crashed the
> puter, destroyed files, rearranged my desktop, etc.. If David can call
> the same functions in win32lib that activeX calls, but in a way that
> won't be a microsoft pain in the a$$ like activeX, that would be useful
> as a simulation of activeX but without the problems. Just my opinion.
What activeX controls were blowing up your computer? Granted that active
desktop was buggy as heck when I first tried it (and I assume still is),
but I've never had those kinds of problems. (BTW, some of your symptoms
sound like they could have also been cured by telling IE to 'browse in a
separate process' using the control panel. This separates it from the OS
in case it does crash. I'd be interested in hearing more specifics on what
was giving you such troubles.
There are a couple of problems with waiting for David (or anybody else) to
wrap activeX. First, nobody has volunteered to do so, and that would be a
BIG project. Second of all, unless someone quits their day job, it won't
happen anytime soon. Third of all, it benefits RDS most of all (from a
monetary standpoint, anyhow), so it would seem that they should be the ones
responsible for doing the work, or contracting it out. Lastly, I love
win32lib, but it's just not extensible. How many 'hacked up' versions have
we either released with our code or send to David to convince him to
incorporate our changes? It makes no sence to perpetuate this cycle to
another technology. (Another argument for OOP!) An activeX wrapper would
be a HUGE pain in the butt if you had to write new routines for every
control, like we do now if we want to use richedit or listview controls in
win32lib. That's still re-inventing the wheel, just with an extra layer of
convoulution. And BTW, xEu (activeX Euphoria) wouldn't pose a risk to your
machine by itself. If you leave it alone, it would leave you alone...
and NICK wrote:
>I think what was actually meant was that ActiveX is trojan prone (often
>mistaken as virus), and that it is - it's dead easy to write an ActiveX
>trojan, then get a user to download it, and theres no way to know what it
>does until it's downloaded. However, trojan horse problems are not an issue
>within an App, as the author would use activex controls that do what they
>need them to do, not downloading an unknown one off the internet.
That was also my fault in not expounding on the issue. UNSIGNED activeX
controls ARE a huge security risk, but no reputable programmer would use an
unsigned activeX control anyhow, so it's really a non-starter. Just like
bound Eu programs, you better trust the author [flashback to NATEGATE]
Brian
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
