🚀 go-pugleaf

"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" <gambit47.no.spam@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:403ef129@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> "Dennis Jones" <djones@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:403ea9c9$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> > I recently wrote a DLL that communicates with one of my
> > EXE's via shared memory.  The DLL is used by a third-party
> > program and provides a means by which the third-party
> > application can communicate with my EXE.
>
> You might want to consider using ActiveX/COM, it is better suited for that
> kind of thing.  If you give your EXE a COM Automation object, the
> third-party can instantiate the COM object (which automatically starts
your
> EXE it it is not already running), and then the third-party can
communicate
> with the EXE directly.

I think you suggested this idea once before Remy, but the problem there is
that the third-party application calls the Windows API via a scripting
language.  It does not have the ability to directly instantiate COM objects,
hence the need for my DLL as an inteface into the EXE.  I suppose I could
make the DLL create a COM object, and that might be one way to go.

But rather than changing the entire mechanism, it would be much easier if
there were a simple solution to the problem from within the context of the
existing mechanism.  I was thinking there might be a way to determine the
number of handles currently open on a mutex, and that is going to be my next
tack.

- Dennis