Re: OLE Discussion (was Re: Opendoc)
- From: Stefan Nobis <snobis usa net>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel nuclecu unam mx>
- Cc: snobis usa net, dusk smsi-roman com, emily thelonious new ox ac uk, gnome-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: OLE Discussion (was Re: Opendoc)
- Date: 18 May 1998 09:42:20 +0200
Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx> writes:
> I am not so sure OpenDoc does `most things' better. When I read IBM's
I worked with both - and iīm very sure.
> tutorials on OpenDoc they basically used the following arguments:
>
> - OpenDoc is based on CORBA which is superior to COM.
> - OpenDoc supports shaped embedded applications.
Thatīs some nice to have, but OpenDoc has more advantages.
You can access objects, embedded in another object directly. In OLE2
you have to doppleclick object after object until you reach the
innermost you wanted (and each time a very big application is loaded).
But my favorite is that OpenDoc honors the UNIX idea of small tools
(objects), which serves a specialized task and works at best with
other tools. OLE2 is designed to connect gigantic applications like
Word, Execel and the like together. Ever tried to embed a corel
graphic in an exel sheed in a word text?
And last but not least for a full featured OpenDoc class you have to
implement about 50 or 60 methods - for a full featured OLE2 class itīs
over 100.
OpenDoc has a better design and most details are better than in OLE2 -
OpenDoc is more powerful (you can even use all itīs features across a
network and itīs OS and language independent). There are also much
details i liked much more in OpenDoc than in OLE2, details which makes
work much easier - but itīs a long time ago i last worked with it, so
i canīt remember everything.
> > many interface and version problems like the windows stuff (what about
> > MS Office 97 - there is a new OLE2-lib and some other programs stopped
> > working because of this).
>
> Well, you can probably argue that OLE2 has been under more pressure
> than OpenDoc has, now that it is for practical purposes dead.
No, thatīs not the point. There were no presure - MS wantīs new
features others donīt have and they donīt want users to use other
products, so they create a new, in some ways incompatible library.
--
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]