Re: Global Interface Table Problem.

From:

"Igor Tandetnik" <itandetnik@mvps.org>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.atl

Date:

Thu, 18 May 2006 00:00:21 -0400

Message-ID:

<ueQpW#ieGHA.4720@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>

"Dinesh Venugopalan" <dinesh@epiance.com> wrote in message
news:eXXcb1ieGHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl

Thanks for the reply and I am sorry for my late reply I live in
different time zone.
In your post below you have said that "The apartment (thread) in
which the COM object was created is dead, and
the object died with it". If that was the case then dont you think it
should have behaved uniformaly in all the threads.

I suspect IE keeps its main thread around, even when the original window
running on that thread is closed. Secondary threads don't enjoy such
special treatment.

You also asked me "Why not just implement a regular C++ class in
your DLL" . The answer to that is that there are other modules
present which are called from the hooks and these modules can be in
any language but they all support com. So we thought if we use com to
store our data it will be easy for us to pass it to these modules.

Then make it a thread-neutral object - a Both-threaded object
aggregating free-threaded marshaler. In this case, there would never be
any proxies/stubs and you wouldn't care when the threads come and go.
--
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