User Controls (Active X) - Da Process
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Eduardo on 10 Sep 2009 15:21 Ralph escribi�: > If you want to avoid the disadvantages of an invisible > ActiveX Control then use an 'regular' ActiveX component instead. Sorry about my ignorance: What are the disadvantages of an invisible ActiveX Control in front of a 'regular' ActiveX component? AFAIK all ActiveX must be registered, so it must be something else.
From: Ralph on 10 Sep 2009 15:32 "Eduardo" <mm(a)mm.com> wrote in message news:h8bjk8$rbd$1(a)aioe.org... > Ralph escribi�: > > > If you want to avoid the disadvantages of an invisible > > ActiveX Control then use an 'regular' ActiveX component instead. > > Sorry about my ignorance: What are the disadvantages of an invisible > ActiveX Control in front of a 'regular' ActiveX component? > > AFAIK all ActiveX must be registered, so it must be something else. Essentially it comes down to over-head. Here two "disadvantages". 1) All that extra code - Property Bag, etc. 2) A UserControl requires a container, and though is invisible at runtime still assumes a visual presence at design-time. So you can't declare one in a Class object for example. (Also one of McKinney's complaints) [This nuance is illustrated by Webbiz's latest post "duplicate UC during Runtime".] -ralph
From: Ralph on 10 Sep 2009 15:44 "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%23X6me5kMKHA.4580(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "So you can't declare one in a Class object for example." Well, not quite true. You can, but then you have to go find a container for it somewhere. Or re-enginneer with additional interfaces - but at that point - why bother? <grin> -ralph
From: Eduardo on 10 Sep 2009 18:48 Ralph escribi�: > "Eduardo" <mm(a)mm.com> wrote in message news:h8bjk8$rbd$1(a)aioe.org... >> Ralph escribi�: >> >>> If you want to avoid the disadvantages of an invisible >>> ActiveX Control then use an 'regular' ActiveX component instead. >> Sorry about my ignorance: What are the disadvantages of an invisible >> ActiveX Control in front of a 'regular' ActiveX component? >> >> AFAIK all ActiveX must be registered, so it must be something else. > > Essentially it comes down to over-head. Here two "disadvantages". > 1) All that extra code - Property Bag, etc. > 2) A UserControl requires a container, and though is invisible at runtime > still assumes a visual presence at design-time. So you can't declare one in > a Class object for example. (Also one of McKinney's complaints) > [This nuance is illustrated by Webbiz's latest post "duplicate UC during > Runtime".] > > -ralph OK, if there were an upgraded version of VB, I would suggest to keep the invisible objects as they are now, but add the capability of creating them without the need of a container. You are right (and McKinney), it should be possible to add an standard VB timer to a class, for example.
From: Tom Shelton on 10 Sep 2009 19:01
On 2009-09-10, Eduardo <mm(a)mm.com> wrote: > Ralph escribi�: >> "Eduardo" <mm(a)mm.com> wrote in message news:h8bjk8$rbd$1(a)aioe.org... >>> Ralph escribi�: >>> >>>> If you want to avoid the disadvantages of an invisible >>>> ActiveX Control then use an 'regular' ActiveX component instead. >>> Sorry about my ignorance: What are the disadvantages of an invisible >>> ActiveX Control in front of a 'regular' ActiveX component? >>> >>> AFAIK all ActiveX must be registered, so it must be something else. >> >> Essentially it comes down to over-head. Here two "disadvantages". >> 1) All that extra code - Property Bag, etc. >> 2) A UserControl requires a container, and though is invisible at runtime >> still assumes a visual presence at design-time. So you can't declare one in >> a Class object for example. (Also one of McKinney's complaints) >> [This nuance is illustrated by Webbiz's latest post "duplicate UC during >> Runtime".] >> >> -ralph > > OK, if there were an upgraded version of VB, I would suggest to keep the > invisible objects as they are now, but add the capability of creating > them without the need of a container. > > You are right (and McKinney), it should be possible to add an standard > VB timer to a class, for example. They already put all of that in the next version - you just won't use it. You are like McKinney - he dropped vb when it moved to version 6.0. -- Tom Shelton |