🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello Dean,

I have not used MSSOAP for a very long time (it was actually not known as
MSSOAP yet when I last I used it).

If you suspect a COM issue, I would suggest dropping the InterfacePtr
wrappers and going directly for the interface with explicit Release calls -
there are just 4 of them in the sample posted. Also, along the same COM
issue suspicion, do the interfaces have to be initialized/destroyed
LIFO-wise? Currently the order of destruction will go in reverse order of
declaration, not reverse order of initialization. I suspect this does not
matter but....? Explicit 'Release' calls will also allow better control in
this issue.

I doubt this matters but the following line makes me a little uncomfortable
since the underlying interface wrapper exposes a conversion operator to the
its interface type but not to IUnknown*:

>     OleCheck(Serializer->Init(TVariant((IUnknown*)Stream)));

So I would prefer

>     OleCheck(Serializer->Init(TVariant((IUnknown*)(IStream*)Stream)));


> I believe that this is caused by the fact that after the request has been
> sent and the reponse recieved the control is still connected to the HTTP
> server.  So I end up with an ever growing number of connections until the
> program is shutdown.  so this is the real problem.

You're assessment is probably correct but in case you're interested, if you
have something like proxyTrace (http://www.pocketsoap.com/tcptrace/pt.aspx),
it might be useful as it will allow you to confirm that indeed the HTTP
connections are still open.

Regards,


Bruneau.