Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: (ActiveX/OLE) COM without the mscoree.dll?

  1. #1

    Thread Starter
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    3

    Question (ActiveX/OLE) COM without the mscoree.dll?

    Scenario: Let's say you have users operating a standalone commercial (no access to source code) desktop application that can be extended through scripting and COM compliant objects. Is it possible to use VB.NET to customize the application? For example, if you wanted to develop a better "Insert Table" dialog for MSWord2000, you could write your DLL in VB6 and integrate it using a VBA macro and deploy the DLL/macro to all your users in an update... can you do the same with VB.NET?

    There have been several posts regarding .NET and ActiveX, and thusfar all that I've been able to discern is that VB.NET won't produce ActiveX components.

    However, I do know that VB.NET can make COM compliant objects by compiling a release build with the "Register for COM Interop" feature enabled (under the Project Properties of Visual Studio).

    Unfortunately, the resulting DLL has a dependency on "mscoree.dll", which in turn needs the .NET framework. This means that the DLL is usable on the development machine, but it cannot be deployed on a machine that doesn't have the .NET framework installed.

    Does anyone know of an option in VB.NET to produce a COM compliant DLL that doesn't need the .NET framework?

    Or maybe someone knows of some licensing details that I missed out on, whereby we're allowed to deploy the .NET framework on every user machine (which I would loathe to do anyway... for many reasons)?

    Thanks,
    Roehl
    Last edited by rsioson; May 28th, 2002 at 02:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Banished Cander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Why do you care?
    Posts
    6,913
    no.. .NET apps require the .NET framework.
    Stack Overflow
    See the features of Visual Studio 2010 and C# 4.0: The 10-4 show on Channel9

  3. #3

    Thread Starter
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    3
    OK, my apologies. I think I just had an epiphany in the last few hours and .NET suddenly made a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it's fair to say that the .NET framework is equivalent (in an abstract manner) with the Java Virtual Machine. Which means that the Framework needs to be on a machine in order to run .NET apps, just as a JVM needs to be on a machine in order to run Java apps.

    Silly me... I suppose I have no choice but to deploy the .NET Framework (I didn't realize the MS did in fact have a distributable for this)... thanks for the splash of cold water...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width