[Gdal-dev] RFC 9: ATL Based COM Interface

[Tamas Szekeres]

2006/12/4, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net>:
> Tamas Szekeres wrote:
> > Ivan,
> >
> > It would be a great addition :-)
> >
> > Some further information might be required about the details of the
> > implementation to decide how the changes affect the other parts of the
> > gdal, and how difficult would it be to keep the interface synchronized
> > with the other API-s like SWIG.
>
> I think one of the biggest advantage of COM API is Interop,
> automatically and directly accessible from .NET languages.
> So, COM components may be used from .NET without problems.
>

Mateusz,

I have no doubt about it. However it will bring in an additional layer
(the COM interop layer)
for the .NET application. In some cases the application might not
tolerate this kind of extra overhead it involves. However in some
cases it may help to solve some of the problems we suffer from, like
the threading issues.
Once again I would support this solution highly if the user will have
all of the information for choosing the right one in a particular
situation. And it would also be expected to keep the multiple
interfaces synchronized to avoid the confusion when using the same
functionality.
This solution is platform dependent and will suffer from the issues
have been addresses to solve by using a pure .NET approach.  But the
user might be aware of the benefits and the disadvantages when using
this or that interface.


Ivan,

Which threading model you intend to use in your COM component?

Best Regards,

Tamas