Talk:OLE Automation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft Windows / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 

Single/multi and in-proc/out-of-proc[edit]

These distinctions apply to all of COM, not just Automation, so I believe it isn't worth mentioning here. - Sikon 06:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup[edit]

Removed the snotty opinion, replaced with a bulletproof statement. It probably needs a source.

Predictably, such These solutions only work on Windows.

I also completed this sentence, which was chopped on 26 July 2006: OLE_Automation&diff=prev&oldid=65982021 (I don't actually know if this is true.)

Object models are presented to automation controllers as type libraries, wih their interfaces described in ODL.

OLE originally was the acronym for object linking and embedding. This applied to version 1 created in 1991. This was made obsolete by version 2 in 1993. Source: Inside OLE Second Edition Kraigs Brockschmidt published in 1995.

  • And then its original meaning was restored. And OLE Automation is now known simply as Automation. Source: see article for the source. - Sikon 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Truism[edit]

Development of automation controllers without knowledge of the target application's object model is "difficult to impossible".

This strikes me as a truism. Trying to do something without knowing what to do is indeed rather difficult. Shinobu 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Average user in focus?[edit]

While OLE Automation or just Automation might be the right overall term from a technical point of view, and ActiveX is just a piece of this, you should take into consideration what kind of information the average user is actually looking for.

For most users, the term ActiveX is well known, but if you mention OLE Automation they have no idea of what you’re talking about, nor will they be interested in knowing anything more about it either. All they want to know is what is ActiveX, is it safe, what does it do, and when can it be trusted?

I’m not saying that ActiveX should be by its own, but do take into consideration that elements that most people (average users) encounters regularly and thus wants more information about, should be made more easily accessible than other things that, even if they are equally or more important, is not known to the average user.

So, of the information about ActiveX is just as easy to find for someone that have little or no knowledge abut computers when placed under OLE Automation, then go for it. And if you do, test your mother or grand father or what ever, se if they are able to find information about ActiveX on Wikipedia. If not, it is too difficult.

Serpentbane 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)