Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Are ActiveX Data Objects used in .NET?

We had a tough time designing GUIs using the COM/DCOM environment and ActiveX.

I was wondering what innovations Microsoft has made in this area? Are ActiveX used in .NET?

The majority of the problems we had were related to security.

Moishe Reitgler
Monday, August 11, 2003

.NET basically replaces COM. (don't know about COM+)
A lot of your problems will be solved with .NET, especially in terms of security. .NET is a drastic way of solving a lot issues that have been building up over the years and were giving you, MS and a lot of other people serious headaches.
Things like no security, DLL hell, no OOP in VB are history.
Also ADO has been revised. It's now called ADO.NET but has very little to do with classic ADO. You'll have a hard time at first getting the idea, but don't give up, once the fog lifts the view is magnificent. (Not unlike COM 5-8 years ago)

Geert-Jan Thomas
Monday, August 11, 2003

And if you've got tons of code written in ADO (not ADO.NET) that you want to save, you can use ADO from .NET - there's a namespace for it as part of the class library.

But don't do that if you don't have to - ADO.NET is much nicer.

Chris Tavares
Monday, August 11, 2003

".NET basically replaces COM. (don't know about COM+)"

COM+ is just some services built atop COM, akin to TCP being built on top of IP. .NET for enterprise services, what you use when you "Enterprise Aware" your apps and components, humorously, is built atop COM+ (and hence is COM->COM+->.NET). Don't get me wrong: The .NET languages make it much easier to make COM+ service using COM components, but keep it in context.

"A lot of your problems will be solved with .NET, especially in terms of security. .NET is a drastic way of solving a lot issues that have been building up over the years and were giving you, MS and a lot of other people serious headaches.
Things like no security, DLL hell, no OOP in VB are history."

No doubt that VB was a weak language, but if people are rallying in praise of VB.NET, why didn't they just move to the fully OOP Delphi, or any of many other choices, years ago? I am disturbed by the hand holding that many in the industry need Microsoft to do for them, slowly leading them into salvation when everyone else has been there for years. Of course this is the same group that once proclaimed the glory that is a typeless language (ugh...).

Regarding security, COM+ offers full security to classic COM components.

DLL "hell" deserves special mention because this one is a hilarious historical about-face--If you remember the concept of shared DLLs was a _saviour_, not  a crippling handicap begging for something to come along and fix it. You know, the whole idea of shared DLLs would allow us to replace just one shared dll, say a spell-checker, and instantly every app will benefit from it (presuming that immutable interfaces are honoured).

Anonymous Cowboy
Tuesday, August 12, 2003

"If you remember the concept of shared DLLs was a _saviour_, not  a crippling handicap begging for something to come along and fix it."

Well yes, but that was before people realized that new DLL version could actually break existing applications because of new bugs, or because specific (possibly undocumented) features were changed. Not to mention all those broken installers that overwrote *newer* DLLs in the system directory...

.NET has a very elegant solution for this problem. Each version of a shared library is stored in its own directory, and every application can specify through configuration files which exact version it wants to use. If nothing is specified, the most recent version is used (assuming it's at least as recent as the one against which the app was compiled).

So you still get the benefit of shared libraries (for well-behaved code) but can avoid the downsides.

Chris Nahr
Wednesday, August 13, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home