Re: Using ATL objects without a COM server
"Alexander Lamaison" <newsgroups@lammy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ukHfjaDkJHA.5732@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:35:47 -0500, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
Why? What do you believe you lose by declaring a module variable?
Not a lot. I'm just trying to do it 'right'. If I create a
CAtlDllModule I have to give it a LIBID
No, you don't have to.
(and possibly other stuff
such as a registry resource).
What for, if you don't intend to register it?
As I'm not using a type library nor
registering classes, it seems odd that these things are required.
They are not.
Is
there a bare- bones module?
CAtlModuleT
I tried subclassing CAtlModule and giving it a no-op
AddCommonRGSReplacements() but this asserts on
ATLASSERT( !m_bInitialized );
in CComSafeDeleteCriticalSection::Init().
I don't seem to see CAtlModule or any of its derived classes use
CComSafeDeleteCriticalSection. What's on the call stack when you get
this assert? Which object is complaining?
Will this work?
I assume you have tried it and it didn't, and that's why you are
here.
Indeed ;) Read: "Should this work?".
I don't immediately see why not. If you have a small sample that
reproduces the problem, you can email it to me at itandetnik@mvps.org,
I'll look at it.
--
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