>Now that all the marqui super geeks received their .NET marching orders from the buffet rooms in Redmond - all of this stuff - like VFP MTDLL and COM+ - are somehow meaningless blunders of a wacky MS strategy in the days of yore!
>
>I read one of Ricks papers from the era - wow - it's the greatest thing since ankle leashes and slip-check! And now it's all being played down like a bad dream.

I never was a fan of COM+/MTS. It had promise when it first came out to resolve some of the issues that were lacking in VFP at the time. This was prior to MTDLLs and MTS/COM+ was the only way that you could even hope to run a VFP component in IIS.

COM+ is cool for when you need the special features, but as a COM container it's little more than a crutch to fix problems in the COM model in the first place.

The problem with this technology is that it is hideously complex. Yeah, the basics are easy enough, but COM in particular has so many rules and exceptions about how things must be done, what can and can't do what that it was tough to deal with. As a component architecture I've always been really negative about it, but it was Mcirosoft's strategy for many years and that's what we have with Visual FoxPro, like it or not...

+++ Rick ---


>
>Hard to follow!
>
>>One thing that no one has mentioned is COM+. It requires Apartment Model threading, which is what you really get with a VFP MTDLL.
>>
>>FWIW, I think the Fox team made a mistake to call these multi-threaded when they really aren't.
>>
>>>Why does VFP offer a [limited] MTDLL capability? What problems were envisioned that MTDLL would help solve?