[racket] MysterX poll

From: Greg Hendershott (greghendershott at gmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 29 14:46:06 EST 2011


tl;dr: No one would help her plant the seeds, harvest the wheat, make
the flour, bake the bread. Everyone helped her eat the bread.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Greg Hendershott
<greghendershott at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have used the basic COM layer (2.1-2.2) to do some one-off
> utilities. Such as moving data from MS SQL Server using the ADODB COM
> interface, into an Excel application using its COM interface.
> Although I'm not actively using those utilities at the moment, it
> seems a shame to lose that interoperability tool in the future.
> Having said that, unfortunately I'm not in a position to volunteer to
> help maintain it. So asking you to keep it makes me feel like one of
> the animals in The Little Red Hen http://oaks.nvg.org/fta.html#ftb2
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> If you use MysterX for COM/ActiveX work under Windows --- or if you are
>> interested in using it --- please drop me a note.
>> If no one is using MysterX, then it may go away, because we have
>> trouble maintaining it.
>> If you tell me that you're (interested in) using MysterX, please also
>> let me know which parts you (would) use:
>>  * The basic COM layer (sections 2.1-2.2 in the MysterX reference)?
>>  * The event layer (section 2.3 in the MysterX reference)?
>>  * The ActiveX layer (section 3 in the MysterX reference)?
>> Depending whether anyone uses MysterX and which parts are used, then it
>> might get replaced by an `ffi/unsafe/com' library that is implemented
>> in Racket, that covers the basic COM layer of MysterX, and that also
>> leverages the FFI to better support calling COM methods directly (e.g.,
>> with a `define-com-class' form) instead of relying only on IDispatch.
>> ____________________
>>  Racket Users list:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

Posted on the users mailing list.