[Mono-list] Comparing .NET CLI implementations

[Douglas and Elena Husemann]

> In reality most of COM+ is just existing technologies (MTS, MSMQ, NLB)
> more cleanly integrated into the COM base libraries with obvious
> features like pooling and JIT activation and a nicer configuration
> thrown in for good measure. Most of the underlying interfaces are the
> same (IObjectContext springs to mind).
>
> Incidentally, I've heard that much of the rotor sources contain
> references to "COM+" as if that was originally the name for ".NET".
>
> Piers.
>
Yes, com+ was the name of componets in the .net framework. And part of the
basis for some of the improvements in (com+ 1.5 in winXP)  although
.net took it further,  By forcing com to be self describing so they don't
have
to be registered in the registry, run in side by side mode (another feature
in
XP)

So in theory, a fully managed program should be able to be installed without
having to register COM componets. and not force a reboot for it to run.
(except
maybe a system upgrades;)  (something that linux folks are use to from what
I
understand)

The only registry entries I could see is to allow for uninstall manifests,
and
other mundane registry entries. in theory a installation could be like the
old
DOS days. dump the files into the directory. Of course being in a Gui,
you would want to put an ICON someplace simple to get to:)  an Uninstall
would be just as easy, just delete the directory.

Douglas