Re: Why JCOM, JACOB and JAWIN?

Hmm, the C++ wrapper gen of jSegue is just one part of the whole project.
Most of the time we use tlb2java which generates java bindings to COM
objects. In fact, I sometimes use it to verify that I can generate bindings
when I'm trying to debug jawin issues. Just recently I generated bindings to
the QuickBooks XML processor with both jSegue and jawin. They both worked
fine. They both used IDispatch underneath to access the underlying COM
objects.

But, as I was saying in another post one of the COM servers we were
targeting had their IDispatch interfaces broken, so only vtable bindings
worked. jSegue supports vtable bindings for dual or IUnknown based
interfaces.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of Java/Win32/COM integration with Jawin
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vitaly Shelest(home)
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [JAWIN] Why JCOM, JACOB and JAWIN?

The main problem of jSegue C++ Wrappper Gen. is that it is written in java.
And if it uses Reflection to parse a java class it would the worst idea.
Because not all classes can be loaded with Class Loader (classes with native
methods, or they use Security Manager, etc.). The code in C++ generated is
half-finished. So JAWIN's idea is better. Try to debug it as me.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Robert Hastings
  Newsgroups: gmane.comp.windows.devel.jawin
  Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:33 AM
  Subject: Re: Why JCOM, JACOB and JAWIN?


  Actually, I did signup as a developer on jawin, but since it does not meet
  all of my requirements I end up spending most of my time on jSegue.

  Robert

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Discussion of Java/Win32/COM integration with Jawin
  [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kai Klesatschke
  Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:13 AM
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: [JAWIN] Why JCOM, JACOB and JAWIN?

  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
  Hash: SHA1

  Hello maintainers,

  during my inquiry for Java-Com-Bridges I found almost 3 projects on
  SourceForge they are dealing with the same issue. IMHO all three
  projects have the same problem. Less maintainers and the status of
  development does not meet MY and maybe others requirements. Immediately
  I had an idea, why not pulling the projects together?

  Greetings Kai


  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
  Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

  iD8DBQFCWoXRo6yr2Zy87e4RAj3GAKDCcPRtDsgeiaUTyFqwkK50FNHb4ACffVA+
  kp4QKph6AwxhVAWfUgxpUFE=
  =clKk
  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----