<?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>Why do the script engines not cache dispatch identifiers?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/16/53027.aspx</link><description>One of the Fundamental Rules of OLE Automation is that for any object, any two calls to GetIdsOfNames with the same string must return the same number. This is so that callers can fetch the dispid once and reuse it, rather than having to fetch it anew</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Why do the script engines not cache dispatch identifiers?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/16/53027.aspx#164714</link><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:40:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:164714</guid><dc:creator>estee</dc:creator><description>By the way, Eric, if in IE we're aliasing document.write in the following way:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;var $=document.write&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What is the difference now in calling the method itself and it's alias? Does the same invocation (with GetIdsOfNames) take place?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Also, seems that such masquerading doesn't work for WScript.Echo. Am i missing something? I thought document and WScript both are of the same ``global'' nature?</description></item><item><title>re: Why do the script engines not cache dispatch identifiers?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/16/53027.aspx#164749</link><pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:20:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:164749</guid><dc:creator>Eric Lippert</dc:creator><description>Good question, complicated answer.  I've put your question in my &amp;quot;blog about this when you get back from vacation&amp;quot; folder, so expect a follow-up sometime in July.</description></item><item><title>Caching Dispatch Identifiers Is A Bad Idea</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/16/53027.aspx#455880</link><pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:30:09 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:455880</guid><dc:creator>Fabulous Adventures In Coding</dc:creator><description>&lt;br&gt;About two years ago I wrote a bit about when it was legal to cache a dispatch identifier so that you...</description></item><item><title>Caching Dispatch Identifiers Is A Bad Idea</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2003/09/16/53027.aspx#4796043</link><pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:53:28 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4796043</guid><dc:creator>Fabulous Adventures In Coding</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;About two years ago I wrote a bit about when it was legal to cache a dispatch identifier so that you&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>