Is there a reason to have different 32-bit and 64-bit interfaces?
Marvin Landman
IActiveScriptParse32, IActiveScriptParse64 and some other interface have
two versions with different IIDs but they only differ in integer sizes
while DWORD_PTR could be used. This causes no problem when using C++ but
forces you to use both interfaces because of different IIDs if you are
working with .NET Framework instead of being able to use UIntPtr for
example.
I would like to know if there is a reason to have different IIDs for
32-bit and 64-bit versions.
Thanks.
Marvin
Jialiang Ge [MSFT]
I understand the inconveniences when using IActiveScriptParse32 and
IActiveScriptParse64 in .NET. I'm not aware of the reason for having both
interfaces, but as a workaround, you could import both interfaces in your
.NET application and bind the type in runtime:
Type activeScriptParse = null;
if (IntPtr.Size == 4)
activeScriptParse = typeof(IActiveScriptParse32);
else
activeScriptParse = typeof(IActiveScriptParse64);
Then operate on the interface through .NET Reflection.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f7ykdhsy.aspx
Regards,
Jialiang Ge
Microsoft Online Community Support
=================================================
Delighting our customers is our #1 priority. We welcome your comments and
suggestions about how we can improve the support we provide to you. Please
feel free to let my manager know what you think of the level of service
provided. You can send feedback directly to my manager at:
msd...@microsoft.com.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
=================================================
Marvin Landman
Jialiang Ge [MSFT] wrote:
> I understand the inconveniences when using IActiveScriptParse32 and
> IActiveScriptParse64 in .NET. I'm not aware of the reason for having both
> interfaces, but as a workaround, you could import both interfaces in your
> .NET application and bind the type in runtime:
>
> Type activeScriptParse = null;
> if (IntPtr.Size == 4)
> activeScriptParse = typeof(IActiveScriptParse32);
> else
> activeScriptParse = typeof(IActiveScriptParse64);
>
> Then operate on the interface through .NET Reflection.
Thanks for the examples.
I actually ended up declaring both interfaces the same in C# using
UIntPtr (except IID) and created a wrapper class that calls the
appropriate interface without even doing a single type conversion. This
solution is much faster than using late-binding. I asked the question
about a reason because I was unable to find one but I don't want to miss
any pitfalls.
Thanks.
Marvin
Jialiang Ge [MSFT]
Nice idea! I don't think that you missed any pitfalls.
Evertjan.
microsoft.public.scripting.jscript:
> Hello Marvin
>
> Nice idea! I don't think that you missed any pitfalls.
>
> Regards,
> Jialiang Ge
> Microsoft Online Community Support
>
> =================================================
> Delighting our customers is our #1 priority.
What are you talking about, Jialiang?
You do not delight us by disregarding Netiquette.
Please always quote on usenet.
And please use a conforming signature,
starting with dash-dash-space-return.
Usenet is not an "Microsoft Online Community".
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jialiang Ge [MSFT]
Thanks for the reminding of quoting the original thread in replies. I will
take care of it in future. I was replying to Marvin's thread "Is there a
reason to have different 32-bit and 64-bit interfaces?".
My signature was designed for managed newsgroup support service:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/aa974230.aspx
"Microsoft Online Community Support" is the team.
Have a nice day!
Regards,
Jialiang Ge
"Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C8AC92D...@194.109.133.242...
Evertjan.
microsoft.public.scripting.jscript:
> Hello Evertjan
Dear Jialiang,
> Thanks for the reminding of quoting the original thread in replies. I
> will take care of it in future. [..]
That's good.
It would be even better if you did not toppost, but did sparse interpost,
where only the attribution and the relevant parts are quoted.
Your quoting at the botton is not very readable for anyone on this NG
stepping in on this thread at your latest posting. Many news-servers have
a short latency time for older postings, so the whole thread could not be
accessable to some readers. Netiquette is based on decades of experience,
and is very logical as I explained.
> My signature was designed for managed newsgroup support service:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/aa974230.aspx
> "Microsoft Online Community Support" is the team.
That's not good.
Say you drive a company car in a country, where driving on the right side
of the road is the law and custom, and you persist driving on the left,
argumenting that is your company's policy?
I do not know what is ment by "managed newsgroup", but this NG is past of
usenet and on usenet there is a very usefull custom, part of the
Netiquette, to start signatures with dash-dash-space-return.
the usefullness being that all complying newsreaders clear the signaturs
in the quoted response.
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
Your newsreader clearly is not complying in that respect, as you quoted
my sig, and my sig cliearly is dash-dash-space-return-ed.
> managed newsgroup support service
I do not experience that your company in any way manages this NG,
am I wrong in this feeling? The only managing seems to be that this
service gives you mistaken advice.
Perhaps you should complain to your boss that this is not in the best
interest of Microsoft to offend this way against Netiquette?
Marvin Landman
Evertjan. wrote:
> Say you drive a company car in a country, where driving on the right side
> of the road is the law and custom, and you persist driving on the left,
> argumenting that is your company's policy?
>
> I do not know what is ment by "managed newsgroup", but this NG is past of
> usenet and on usenet there is a very usefull custom, part of the
> Netiquette, to start signatures with dash-dash-space-return.
>
> the usefullness being that all complying newsreaders clear the signaturs
> in the quoted response.
>
> ...
>
> I do not experience that your company in any way manages this NG,
> am I wrong in this feeling? The only managing seems to be that this
> service gives you mistaken advice.
>
> Perhaps you should complain to your boss that this is not in the best
> interest of Microsoft to offend this way against Netiquette?
These posts originate from NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com so Microsoft
is actually managing this newsgroup and others found on the same server.
NNTP is an open Internet standard that anyone can use without any
obligation regarding the content they host/provide. Also note that
Microsoft is using microsoft.* newsgroup names on their own server so
they are not interfering with other Usenet groups.
As such I don't really see why should they follow the rules of some
other community.
It's good that other news servers are fetching posts from Microsoft's
new servers and making the available on different other news servers but
just because they do, Microsoft cannot be obligated to require the users
on its own servers to follow the rules of the mirroring servers.
And since Microsoft's newsgroup names are not interfering with other
newsgroups I don't think that they would ruin the heritage of Usenet.
In reply to your car driving metaphor:
As long as you are driving on _public_ roads, of course you can't just
drive on the left side while all the other people are driving on the
right. But on your own _private_ roads you don't have to follow the
Highway Code and in fact you can have your own rules without interfering
with the public roads, even if you allow strangers to use your private
roads.
Regards,
Marvin
Evertjan.
microsoft.public.scripting.jscript:
> These posts originate from NNTP server msnews.microsoft.com so
Microsoft
> is actually managing this newsgroup and others found on the same
server.
That is not the way I understand the "Managing of a newsgroup".
> NNTP is an open Internet standard that anyone can use without any
> obligation regarding the content they host/provide. Also note that
> Microsoft is using microsoft.* newsgroup names on their own server so
> they are not interfering with other Usenet groups.
I don't hold MS legally responsible for not complying with the sig custom
of Netiquette.
That is the nature of any etiquette.
Any etiquette is only enforced by the environment it is used in and ment
for, but that does not mean it should not be enforced, preferably and
usually by arguments of reasoning and not by coertion.
If MS puts some NG on usenet, I hold tham responsible for potsing in such
NG according to Netiquette even more so than individual users.
As a customer I spent many thousands of Euros with them [didn't we all?],
but more important MS should not disbehave in a public forum.
If such public forum is owned or organized by them, would that giove tham
the moral right to disbehave?
It is in the own interest of MS to behave correctly in public, and just
common decency.
And this is the time to hold them to that, as they are slowly correcting
the abbberrances of Jscript and IE to the mainstream of web-standard
behavour. I think and hope they have seen the light.
The possible argument of individual employees of MS [with no disrespect
to those individuals, they are very nice and helpfull, only to the
company environment], that their organisation gives them other
directives, does not hold, because such notyet applied changes should
come from the workfloor.
It seems strangs however that a department of MS that "manages" these NGs
is not aware of Usenet Netiquette and it's usefulness.