<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx</link><description>I posted the article "SxS Managed COM With Manifest Resource (WinXP and Win2K3)" some time ago and Jason Buxton was interested in applying it to Visual Basic 6.0 client applications. Well, I've put together an MSDN article proposal which addresses that</description><dc:language>en-GB</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>Music &amp;raquo; White.Steve.Blog : New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx#8556277</link><pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 10:59:10 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8556277</guid><dc:creator>Music &amp;raquo; White.Steve.Blog : New registration-free COM article</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://music.findsongbylyricsblog.info/whitesteveblog-new-registration-free-com-article/"&gt;http://music.findsongbylyricsblog.info/whitesteveblog-new-registration-free-com-article/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8556277" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Actors, Movies, and Songs &amp;raquo; White.Steve.Blog : New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx#7634735</link><pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:43:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:7634735</guid><dc:creator>Actors, Movies, and Songs » White.Steve.Blog : New registration-free COM article</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://actorsandsongsblog.info/whitesteveblog-new-registration-free-com-article/"&gt;http://actorsandsongsblog.info/whitesteveblog-new-registration-free-com-article/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=7634735" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx#377270</link><pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:21:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:377270</guid><dc:creator>Steve White</dc:creator><description>So, certainly Enterprise Services could be thought of as being built on top of COM+ in the sense that .NET simply offers a managed interface to the COM+ APIs. But .NET wasn't built on top of COM, although it definitely benefits from what was learned from designing COM.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's interesting that you cite 'treating everything as XML' as necessarily a bad thing. .NET doesn't do so, but Web Services arguably do. However, the XML needn't be a stream of UTF-8 angle brackets and roman characters. The infoset of an XML doc can be serialized any way you like in theory. Look out for a binary XML wire format in Indigo.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=377270" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx#377245</link><pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:36:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:377245</guid><dc:creator>Yaytay</dc:creator><description>COM is vastly more useful than .NET, why else would .NET be built on top of it?&lt;br&gt;COM has no language constraints, no baggage, no requirement for the process to drag a truly hideous library of poorly designed stuff, no requirement to treat everthing as XML, a much simpler and more efficient secure RPC method, ...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Please don't stop flogging that dead donkey.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=377245" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx#377040</link><pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:38:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:377040</guid><dc:creator>Steve White</dc:creator><description>Thanks for your comment.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Granted, COM has been superceded to a great degree inside the service boundary by .NET and between service boundaries by XSD/SOAP, and I hope no new systems are being built with COM technology where these others would suit. However, COM components exist and will continue to exist for some time to come. COM+ is still a relevant option in some applications. .NET has excellent interop features in order that existing component investments can continue to be used. And SxS allows great new shared infrastructure opportunities and gives a new lease of life to legacy COM.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=377040" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: New registration-free COM article</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/stevewhitepsfd/archive/2005/02/20/377017.aspx#377037</link><pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:24:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:377037</guid><dc:creator>-</dc:creator><description>Why are you still flogging that dead donkey called COM.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;There are better technologies out there now called UNO and .NET and XML SOAP RPC etc&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=377037" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>