Re: Basic COM architecture problem

From:

"Igor Tandetnik" <itandetnik@mvps.org>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.atl

Date:

Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:51:47 -0400

Message-ID:

<u$fAOMk5GHA.3592@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>

Simon L <silangdon@hotmail.com> wrote:

I recently shipped a product where I had bolted on a ATL COM object to
an existing App. I'm now in the position of wanting to change some of
the interface definitions - the best thing to do would be to create a
whole new interface for my COM that supercedes the old one.

But that's made me think about the architecture of my COM - it's a
network client and I was kicking off a thread (and doing all
initialisation) on creation of the interface... but if i create a
second interface I still want to give it access to the thread.

I don't understand your problem at all - mostly because you seem to use
the term "interface" when you mean "object". Do you realize that a
single COM object may (and often does) implement multiple interfaces
side by side?
--
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