Is it possible (using one of the server side implementations of javascript .. see http://www.nakedjavascript.com/getting-started-55) to instantiate a COM object and invoke methods on it?
There is node-win32ole (npm install win32ole).
That depends on which server-side implementation you’re using.
When using ASP/JS (or any other framework using Microsoft’s Windows Scripting engine), that’s not a problem using the ActiveXObject constructor.
When using JSDB, you can use the ActiveX constructor.
Node.js doesn’t really work on Windows, only thru Cygwin, so ActiveX probably won’t be supported.
I have no idea how easy or difficult it would be to access COM objects from SpiderMonkey, V8 or SquirrelFish directly. They have C/C++ interfaces — and are open source, so if you know your way in the language, you could probably add it.
Related
Firefox provides XPCOM API interface for writing add-on classes in C++ and allow third-party web applications to access them. I'm wondering - is there any other way of achieving these benefits (i.e. write an add-on in C++ and provide a JavaScript interface, so any JavaScript app can use this interface and eventually C++ class functionality)?
Yes, it is possible to write XPCOM components in C++ (or Javascript for that matter) and expose them to websites. You would register them in the JavaScript-global-property, JavaScript-global-constructor, etc. category or categories.
This stuff is generally not documented very well, if at all. If you'd like to know more about it, then read the code (e.g. on mxr).
But doing so is strongly discouraged for a lot of reasons:
It is very hard to ensure such things are actually secure and make it work reliable.
It is hard to control what website may actually use the new API. JavaScript-global-property and friends will be available to all websites!
Your add-on would be introducing new names into the global javascript namespace, which might clash with web site code. (Because of this, many new WebAPIs aren't introduced directly into the global namespace, but are made a property of navigator).
Due to these reasons, the addons.mozilla.org site will only accept add-ons using this mechanism as an exception to the rule and only when the author demonstrates that the use is required and without real alternatives.
MDN has a couple of articles regarding webpage-to-extension communication and vice versa you could use instead, e.g. "Interaction between privileged and non-privileged pages".
Also, it is discouraged to ship binary XPCOM components within extensions:
You'd need to re-compile your binaries against each Gecko version (every six weeks), because binary components are version tagged since Firefox 4.
Binary APIs/ABIs between (point) releases are not as stable as you would hope. Actually APIs/ABIs where inadvertently broken late in the game quite often, causing lots of unnecessary crashes for a lot of users, e.g. bug 828296.
The platform developers officially said binary components in extensions are a hassle.
Instead, you should try to use Javascript where possible, and/or create a normal binary library (.so, .dll, .dylib) with a C-API/ABI and use js-ctypes. You could implement your XPCOM components in javascript, which would then call into your library with js-ctypes.
AFAIK most add-ons switched to js-ctypes by now.
I want to call some Windows API functions to manipulate Windows Input Method Editor to make my Emacs an IME-aware application. How can I call Windows API functions using Emacs lisp?
Thank you!
I dont believe its possible to directly call native code from emacs; the best you'll be able to achieve is to proxy calls to the Windows API through another process, and communicate with it through IPC
Check this stackoverflow question:
load a dynamic library from elisp
I think maybe need a proxy interface, but use w32-send-sys-command can do little things,
code 61776 can send hotkey maybe worth a try
I was just thinking. C# has Winforms/WPF, Java has Swing and other frameworks, C++ has QT and so on; is it possible to create an application without using a Framework?
Putting aside the practicality of it, I'm just curious. How would one create an application that Just Works(tm) without needing external frameworks?
Two options come to mind:
Classical Win32 applications written in C. I don't know if standard Windows SDK API also counts as an "external framework" in your book, but that's as low as it gets.
DirectX/OpenGL games written from scratch with your own homebrew framework (not external, right?) There you get to do all the drawing yourself - although again, you use a pretty big library of primitive drawing functions.
If you want even less "framework", you'll have to code your own OS and drivers. :P
C# needs .NET Framework, not WinForms (which is an optional library used by some application). The same with Java.
Unmanaged (native) applications usually use some runtime library - the library of common functions. You can write a native application without any library - the compiler lets you do this, but you will need to (re)write lots of common functions, eg. for string manipulation etc..
Firstly, what is a framework?
Really a framework is just a bunch of code that is provided to you. You could, at least in theory, write the same code yourself. In that case you wouldn't be using a framework.
Your application can only do what the operating system allows it to do. Your program cannot directly manipulate the graphics card for example. So you have to use the APIs of your operating system in order to do anything.
So you are going to be calling into other code. (unless you write your own operating system). You will also being using another framework or api to get stuff done.
Yes. How: in the way that the frameworks you mentioned are implemented.
From a Windows point of view, you would register your window with Windows, then listen to window messages and react as required. Everything would be up to you - from drawing the window to building controls.
How do I reference and communciate with an ActiveX library from within my gcc compiled application?
Well, I've never actually tried it, but there is no reason you wouldn't be able to do this. You basically just need to have the interface definitions for the classes you need (might be able to get this from VS) and then make the appropriate calls.
The function CoCreateInstance is in Ole32.dll, so you could probably load the library, get the entrypoint, and then you just have to find the CLSIDs for creating the COM object you want, etc. As long as you are careful about only casting with QueryInterface, you should be just fine; COM was designed specifically to provide binary compatibility so that this would be possible.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686615%28VS.85%29.aspx
the hardest part will be getting all the headers and such that you need.
We are using a COM Object automation model to make our application available to our customers.
They are using for the most part python to access our applicaton interface.
As we want to be able to install (not yet run, that's another issue) different versions of the application, we are changing our COM components to be regfree.
But that conflicts with the access from scripting languages through IDispatch automation since they need the entries in the registry.
Our approach is to create an application which manages the active version of our actual application. It lets the user decide which version he wants to have and it takes care of the registry entries.
What are the alternatives to our approach?
There is a protocol within COM for doing this. If you version the Interfaces (and change the GUIDS for each version) you can install multiple versions. Microsoft does this with WORD etc.
It is possible to create a Word.Document.5 class which is specific to version 5 of the library, or just word.Document which will create an instance of the highest present on the machine. I'm not sure if this functionality is build into COM or needs to be impemented but it's worth looking into.
Regfree COM objects can be accessed through the Microsoft.Windows.ActCtx object.
As for IDispatch automation requiring entries in the registry -- that's not strictly correct. I presume you're using the default ATL implementation, IDispatchImpl.
We solved this solution by providing our own implementation, IRegFreeDispatchImpl, which used the activation context manipulation APIs in the manner suggested here to wrap all entry points into the DLL with an activation context activation/deactivation.
Well the answer is suggested by yourself. You can write an application which has complete list of all versions of COM components. Once a version is selected by user, you can call regsvr32 application to register that particular version.