Even if Alex passes a pointer to a stream or some other object, that =
object can be wrapped with IUNKNOWN if you are trying to provide a COM =
interface for the object.
I know that it's easier to provide a COM interface using IDispath and =
basic types but I think it's just far too limiting for an API. Maybe we =
should let the interface be designed in Java first and worry about the =
IDL later. :)
Chris Lloyd
From: Kevin Grimes@LIANT on 06/23/97 06:30 PM
Limiting the types used in the Java XAPI to basic Java types like int,
boolean, String, plus the Java interfaces that you've actually =
implemented
in Java (IElement, IXMLProcessor etc.) will make the job of porting the
Java XAPI to IDL easier. InputStream was the first thing I tripped over
when I translated my Java APIs into IDL--to avoid defining an =
InputStream
interface in IDL I rewrote the member function processDocument to use
String. Here is my version of xml.idl. This is my first use of IDL, and
XML, and Java for that matter, so please let me know if I'm doing =
something
stupid. I compile this with the MIDL compiler that comes with =
Microsoft's
Visual Studio. We have C++ and Java clients that implement the
IXMLApplication callbacks or use the IGrove and INode interfaces to
traverse the parse tree.
Regards, Kevin (k.grimes@liant.com)
=00=00