Talk:Distributed Component Object Model

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Microsoft: .NET Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (assessed as Mid-importance).

Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance

	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.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft Controversy

I remember reading up into DCE several years ago, I found a lot of accusations on the web that Microsoft "hijacked" a lot of code from DCE/RPC in "MSRPC" MSRPC is derived from the DCE 1.1 reference implementation, but has been copyrighted by Microsoft. None of the UNIX vendors at the time wanted to implement DCE/RPC it at the time.

Later on, DCOM would be 'donated' by MicroSoft to the Open Group as a marketing stunt. The "D" to COM was due to extensive use of DCE/RPC – more specifically Microsoft's enhanced version, known as MSRPC. However, DCOM is pretty worthless without a bunch of application-level class libraries, such as ODBC, OLE DB, ADO, and ASP to run on top of it. Microsoft never released these specifications to the public, so these technologies have never been available for Unix. DCOM was 'donated' to Open Group as a marketing stunt.

Shouldn't this issue be addressed somewhere?

Sure - with the appropriate references, that would make a great addition to this article. Merenta (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any of that might be worth including if it is true but you should have something indicating it is true before proceeding. My impression is that most of what you are saying is inaccurate or wrong. Start by understanding the relevance of COM to DCOM. Sam Tomato (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DCOM is not depreciated in favor of .Net

Apprently the .NET CLR is a DCOM object, refering to Windows Internals fifth edition, so how come .Net depreciate COM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibo1978 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalling

This article implies that Marshalling is (a proprietary) part of DCOM yet it also says that "DCE/RPC has strictly defined rules regarding marshalling". As far as I know, the marshalling is done by COM and is therefore not relevnat to DCOM. Sam Tomato (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Distributed Component Object Model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213022641/http://tcom.andjoin.com:80/ to http://tcom.andjoin.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essential difference between COM and DCOM

I think that COM is a representation of an abstract or concrete set of software interfaces and (when concrete) their implementations in code (and represented by a GUID (Global User IDentifier)). It has a similar binary representation as a C+ Class (in an .h Include file and a .cpp Instantiation file). DCOM adds an Index for mapping from a Method text name to the offset in the COM file (and a name/version for the object, like "NextPage.1"). Marshaling is the serialization, or conversion to text, of binary arguments. The DCOM implementation itself converts from text back to binary. All text is in 16-bit Unicode. I'm sure I have got some of this wrong, but COM and DCOM objects are much simpler than this article would suggest, with its pervasive use of Microsoft-coined words. DCOM has a set of development tools to make it easier to use than raw COM. DCOM objects can be called directly from script code. David Spector (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]