ActiveX DLL's vs. Classes

[jon]

It's common practice in my shop to build ActiveX DLL's which contain frequently
used code (INI File access, etc.). I've been taught that it was better to
use common classes instead - easier to debug, simpler installation, etc.
Is there a reason to use DLL's instead? The only possible reason I can
think of is possible MTS - any others?

[Deborah Kurata]

Hi Jon -

I am a little unsure about your question. We normally recommend using common
classes and compiling them into an ActiveX DLL!

Deborah

jon wrote in message <38ff27c1$1@news.devx.com>...
>
>It's common practice in my shop to build ActiveX DLL's which contain
frequently
>used code (INI File access, etc.). I've been taught that it was better to
>use common classes instead - easier to debug, simpler installation, etc.
> Is there a reason to use DLL's instead? The only possible reason I can
>think of is possible MTS - any others?

[jon]

Thanks for the quick response. Here's what I mean: If you have common code
that is used in multiple projects (mostly WebClasses), would you want to
use ActiveX DLL's to encapsulate this common code, or would you want to use
classes?

My preference is to have a Common folder in VSS, with a data access class,
a file handling class, an error handling class, a membership class, etc.
These classes are then shared into new projects.

Another option is to create an ADO wrapper DLL, a file handling DLL, etc.,
and reference these in new projects.

What's your preference and why?

"Deborah Kurata" <deborahk@insteptech.com> wrote:
>Hi Jon -
>
>I am a little unsure about your question. We normally recommend using common
>classes and compiling them into an ActiveX DLL!
>
>Deborah
>
>jon wrote in message <38ff27c1$1@news.devx.com>...
>>
>>It's common practice in my shop to build ActiveX DLL's which contain
>frequently
>>used code (INI File access, etc.). I've been taught that it was better
to
>>use common classes instead - easier to debug, simpler installation, etc.
>> Is there a reason to use DLL's instead? The only possible reason I can
>>think of is possible MTS - any others?
>
>

[Deborah Kurata]

I prefer to have them compiled. That way that cannot be accidentally
changed. That allows allows correcting bugs and deploying updates to the
component without recompiling any of the applications that use it.

Good luck!
Deborah

jon wrote in message <38ff49c2$1@news.devx.com>...
>
>Thanks for the quick response. Here's what I mean: If you have common
code
>that is used in multiple projects (mostly WebClasses), would you want to
>use ActiveX DLL's to encapsulate this common code, or would you want to use
>classes?
>
>My preference is to have a Common folder in VSS, with a data access class,
>a file handling class, an error handling class, a membership class, etc.
> These classes are then shared into new projects.
>
>Another option is to create an ADO wrapper DLL, a file handling DLL, etc.,
>and reference these in new projects.
>
>What's your preference and why?
>
>"Deborah Kurata" <deborahk@insteptech.com> wrote:
>>Hi Jon -
>>
>>I am a little unsure about your question. We normally recommend using
common
>>classes and compiling them into an ActiveX DLL!
>>
>>Deborah
>>
>>jon wrote in message <38ff27c1$1@news.devx.com>...
>>>
>>>It's common practice in my shop to build ActiveX DLL's which contain
>>frequently
>>>used code (INI File access, etc.). I've been taught that it was better
>to
>>>use common classes instead - easier to debug, simpler installation, etc.
>>> Is there a reason to use DLL's instead? The only possible reason I can
>>>think of is possible MTS - any others?
>>
>>
>