Re: Instantiating ComObjects - best practice

From:

"Igor Tandetnik" <itandetnik@mvps.org>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.atl

Date:

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:05:03 -0400

Message-ID:

<#qc8nr17IHA.3692@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>

"Alexander Lamaison" <newsgroups@lammy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u5TTgH17IHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

One last question; back to the static CMyObject::MakeInstance method
that you suggested earlier, is there any difference between:
CMyObject::MakeInstance( imp-spec-args, &pInterfacePointer );
and
CComObject<CMyObject>::MakeInstance( imp-spec-args,
&pInterfacePointer );

None whatsoever. There's nothing special about CComObject either: it
looks something like this:

template <class T>
class CComObject : public T {
// Implement QI, AddRef and Release
};

So, CComObject<CMyObject> is a class derived from CMyObject. If you have
a base class Base with a static method M, and a derived class Derived
(that doesn't have its own method named M), there's no difference
between Base::M and Derived::M.
--
With best wishes,
Igor Tandetnik

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to
land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly
overhead. -- RFC 1925