|
Prev: EBook
Next: Ripple effect
From: Thomas Krueger on 11 Jul 2006 10:24 Hello, i got a problems using COM objects in Ada. The first thing i tried to do has been to read the article from David Bottom"Interfacing Ada 95 to Microsoft COM and DCOM Technologies". Pretty good article for understanding, but i think it is to much work for many more functions. I am looking for a solution similar to the C++ visual studio. Where i can import the classes easily ... I found GNATCOM and the desrciptions are well. But i was not able to finish the install procedure using the free ada2005 gnat compiler. Maybe the problems with the installation is another topic Another one is Object ada from Aoinix (the demo version) but this version does not support activeX. Does the fully licensed product support activeX well? (like the c++ ms visual studio) Which way would you prefer? Is there another one? Thanks in advance Thomas
From: bubble on 12 Jul 2006 04:54 hi,Thomas: A new keyword,"interface",has been added to ada2005. you must check out a new version Gnatcom from CVS to fix the problem "Thomas Krueger" <thomas.krueger2(a)uni-rostock.de> ???g??l??s?D:44b3b488$1(a)news.uni-rostock.de... > Hello, > > i got a problems using COM objects in Ada. The first thing i tried to do > has been to read the article from David Bottom"Interfacing Ada 95 to > Microsoft COM and DCOM Technologies". Pretty good article for > understanding, but i think it is to much work for many more functions. I > am looking for a solution similar to the C++ visual studio. Where i can > import the classes easily ... > > I found GNATCOM and the desrciptions are well. But i was not able to > finish the install procedure using the free ada2005 gnat compiler. Maybe > the problems with the installation is another topic > > Another one is Object ada from Aoinix (the demo version) but this version > does not support activeX. Does the fully licensed product support activeX > well? (like the c++ ms visual studio) > > Which way would you prefer? Is there another one? > > Thanks in advance > Thomas > > >
From: Thomas Krueger on 12 Jul 2006 09:26 Hi, thank you for your email. Can you help me again? Iextracted the archive and tried to install gnatcom by following the instruction in the readme.txt. Instead off calling the install bat I entered the following command: C:\Programme\gnavi\gnatcom>gnat make makefile after that I recieved the following error messages gcc -c -x ada makefile makefile:1:01: compilation unit expected makefile:26:10: illegal character makefile:33:30: illegal character makefile:50:24: illegal character gnatmake: "makefile" compilation error the gnavi/gnatcom is in the path in autoexec.bat Sorry, but i dont know what to do to make it run. A longer time ago i've written simple programm using the gwindows. At that time the installtion using the old gnat 3.15p succeeded without any problems. Thank you Thomas
From: gautier_niouzes on 12 Jul 2006 09:48 Thomas Krueger schrieb: [...] > after that I recieved the following error messages > > gcc -c -x ada makefile > makefile:1:01: compilation unit expected > makefile:26:10: illegal character > makefile:33:30: illegal character > makefile:50:24: illegal character > gnatmake: "makefile" compilation error It looks like the makefile is taken as an Ada source. Did you try just "make" ? I remember doing the exercise with GNATCOM / GWindows and GNAT post-3.15p. IIRC the main gotcha is the disappearance of use of registry (GNATReg) after 3.15p; you have put the GNATCOM and other such sources in the library tree and go with .gpr files for referencing subdirs, sources etc; the best is to mimic the Win32 bindings (again, IIRC). HTH, Gautier ______________________________________________________________ Ada programming -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm NB: For a direct answer, e-mail address on the Web site!
From: Thomas Krueger on 12 Jul 2006 10:57
@Bubble: The archive you gave me is working. With the things you gave me there is no need for "installing". @Gautier, thank you too. I am going to try your way to install the gnatcom by my own. Thanks a lot Thomas |