abb wrote:Why did you choose the OCX usage? Why not Netscape plugin?
abb wrote:I'm now dealing with it on Mac and I've found that Netscape plugin usage is more "transparent" way, where you don't need to load any DLLs into memory manually, etc. and that way is more platform-independent, whereas OCX is for Windows only.
What do you think about all that?
Softanics wrote:If it's necessary to create a stanalone application, you should load an OCX or Plugin from memory, right? It doesn't matter what you use: ocx or plugin.
abb wrote:I beleave it's not pretty correct. First of all, Netscape plugin _is_not_ loaded _from_memory_. It is loaded, as usual DLL. All tricks with loading SWF from memory are performed _after_ that. Netscape Plugin interface has _documented_ way of its embedding into user application. You are using _undocumented_ way of OCX loading, implementing (partially) operating system functions. I hope you'll not dispute this statement.
abb wrote:The subject is that Netscape plugin interface is multiplatform _by_default_. OCX-based solution is oriented to MS Windows and can be used _only_ under Windows. Aren't you agree?
abb wrote:I don't wish to tell that your solution is bad - no, it's good! But it's monoplatform one. As software developer, I must use _different_ solutions to create really multiplatform software. Didn't you think about multiplatform solution? Your market would be much wider! Am I wrong?
Softanics wrote:"Standalone" means "single exe", so if an EXE loads Netscape plugin using LoadLibrary, it's not standalone.
Softanics wrote:f-in-box also could do load flash ocx using usual LoadLibrary.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests