I am working on Win32 Ole support in ruby. The main thrush is to allow ruby
to be at both sides of the equation. I have been using some bits of the
current Win32 Ole module but am rewriting many bits

I have it mostly working now so you can create Ruby object via IDisaptch

e.g.

Set MyObject = CreateObject("Ruby.MyClass")

And then make calls to the ruby Object.  As you can pass IDispatch objects
back to across the interface I am using some of the Win32Ole module as a
basepoint for that side of the equation.

I think this good COM support VITAL to make ruby really useful, and
mainstream on Windows, and I am keen to see more people take it up.   And
it's a nice easy way to create com objects to boot (even if currently it
only supports IDispatch )

Ralph

----- Original Message -----
From: "MikkelFJ" <mikkelj-anti-spam / post1.dknet.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>; <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:58 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:25642] WIN32OLE


> Have anyone successfully  used the win32ole library for ruby?
> I have been testing with the 1.6.1 windows installer distribution and
> recently with the 1.6.4 distribution.
>
> The first time I gave up on it because it couldn't iterate without
crashing.
> In the latest release there is a comment about having fixed the each
> operation, so I guess that should do it, and it also works fine now.
>
> But then I get method not found errors when working with ole automation
> (i.e. script friendly) COM interfaces when there is an optional property
in
> the interface.
>
> Now I could understand it, if it worked consistently - but on one machine,
> it fails if all arguments are optional, on another machine it fails
earlier
> on a method that has an optional property which is not the first argument.
>
> This is disappointing: In 2 lines of code you can dump the names of all
> tables in an Access database. But that is no good if the api isn't stable.
>
> In my experience win32ole does not appear mature for production usage. And
> this is really a shame. It would be nice to use Ruby on the windows
> platform, but without proper .Net or COM integration, it is simply too
> circumstantial to use - even if Ruby by far is the easiest language to
write
> extensions in (except .Net using C++ managed extensions).
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
>