> You can configure it programatically and is not that big of a deal but
yes,
> sockets are much easier.

> > What you you all think ?? Is there anyone out there who is experiencing
> > these same issues and do you think SOCKETS are the way to go ??

> They are an alternative. Depends how elegant you want your app (meaning
you
> may not want to parse strings or deal with buffers of bytes instead of
> calling methods of an object) and how much time you want to invest in
DCOM.
> At the end it pays off, expecially if security is your concern.
> *Avoid exes* and build Delphi ActiveX libraries. It becomes *much* easier
> with MTS and you can forget about many worries.
> That is my recommendation.
> You can scale much better, have administration tools (remote and local)
and
> all sort of goodies...

> That IMO is the way to go in many circumnstances (not in all thought).

> I haven't used DCOMCNFG (thank God) in more than a year thanks to MTS.
> Checl "Professional DCOM Programming", Richard Grimes

> > Also, I do NOT use MTS. I don't use any major database functionality as
my
> > projects mainly deal with controlling external devices, with just a
> database
> > tagged on for historic recording and for logon and intial programme
setup.

> So? MTS is no only for distributed transactions (as a matter of fact I
> rarely use that).

> > Do you think under these circumstances sockets would be better for
sending
> > short commands to the remote PC to control the device?

> If this is your case, then sockets are fine but you are avioding a thing
> that you better learn to become a better Windows developer.
> Trust me, it's worth it.

> > Are there any major pitfalls (like over the internet etc) where I might
> find
> > myself in any problems in the future ?

> Not with sockets.
> You may think of SOAP also.
> Check my article at www.msdelphi.com and download my components at
> codecentral.

> Sorry for being so brief... (it's late and gotta got o work <G>)

>     -No more DCOMCNFG hassle.
>     -It's scaleable
>     -Object pool

> "Ross Pellegrino" <r...@home.come> wrote in message

> >     -No more DCOMCNFG hassle.
> >     -It's scaleable
> >     -Object pool

> I haven't used DCOMCNFG (thank God) in more than a year thanks to MTS.
> Checl "Professional DCOM Programming", Richard Grimes

> > Also, I do NOT use MTS. I don't use any major database functionality as
my
> > projects mainly deal with controlling external devices, with just a
> database
> > tagged on for historic recording and for logon and intial programme
setup.

> So? MTS is no only for distributed transactions (as a matter of fact I
> rarely use that).

> > Do you think under these circumstances sockets would be better for
sending
> > short commands to the remote PC to control the device?

> If this is your case, then sockets are fine but you are avioding a thing
> that you better learn to become a better Windows developer.
> Trust me, it's worth it.

> > Are there any major pitfalls (like over the internet etc) where I might
> find
> > myself in any problems in the future ?

> Not with sockets.
> You may think of SOAP also.
> Check my article at www.msdelphi.com and download my components at
> codecentral.

> Sorry for being so brief... (it's late and gotta got o work <G>)

> I've created an MTS/COM+ server that I run on win2kpro.  I tested a client
> machine win98 and client app worked fine(just needed to install/register
> either the TLB or DLL of the com object on the client).  Also this client
> machine is on a LAN, although I did use the internet IP in my CreateRemote
> call.  When an associate tried to run my client app on another win2kpro
> machine over the internet he got an "interface not supported" error.  We
> tried installing/registering TLB and/or COM DLL with no luck.  I also
> created an install package (MSI) that COM+ built for me and installed on
his
> machine and still no go.  What could possibly be going wrong?  It doesn't
> sound like a security issue, but even still I have "Enforce Access Checks"
> unchecked.  Authentication Level was set at packet.

> Help me if you can!

> John

> "Alessandro Federici" <a...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:97oefb$8ti11@bornews.inprise.com...
> > > You say the DCOM configuration can be done programmatically - how ?
(how
> > > does one automatically call DCOMCNFG to install properly ?)

> > I haven't used DCOMCNFG (thank God) in more than a year thanks to MTS.
> > Checl "Professional DCOM Programming", Richard Grimes

> > > Also, I do NOT use MTS. I don't use any major database functionality
as
> my
> > > projects mainly deal with controlling external devices, with just a
> > database
> > > tagged on for historic recording and for logon and intial programme
> setup.

> > So? MTS is no only for distributed transactions (as a matter of fact I
> > rarely use that).

> > > Do you think under these circumstances sockets would be better for
> sending
> > > short commands to the remote PC to control the device?

> > If this is your case, then sockets are fine but you are avioding a thing
> > that you better learn to become a better Windows developer.
> > Trust me, it's worth it.

> > > Are there any major pitfalls (like over the internet etc) where I
might
> > find
> > > myself in any problems in the future ?

> > Not with sockets.
> > You may think of SOAP also.
> > Check my article at www.msdelphi.com and download my components at
> > codecentral.

> > Sorry for being so brief... (it's late and gotta got o work <G>)