Re: Uses for Screen OCR technology
"Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158331322.356621.38960@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
It certainly is true that some MS technologies are only exposed as COM.
Such as MSHTML, MSXML, DirectShow, Explorer shell interfaces, etc. This
makes them very much harder to use than raw Win32 interfaces, IMHO.
I agree that these are exposed only thru COM. However, the underlying
code is all Win32 or something coded internally, likely in C++. COM
only exposes the functionality thats there. Unless the component which
has this functionality is one and the same(IOW not loosely coupled) as
the component which exposes this functionality, it would not make sense
to go thru COM as its just more overhead.
Proponents of COM (I'm not sure I'm one of them) claim it is such a low
overhead it makes an ideal way to expose functionality. If that's true, and
Microsoft has invested so heavily in it, why would they then go through the
trouble of exposing an equivilent DLL interface just so they can say .NET
doesn't require COM? You're right, it could be done, but Microsoft has
neither the technical or political reasons to do it.
-- David