ActiveX可以丢失事件吗？ Java to Socket更可靠？ [英] ActiveX can lose events? Java to Socket is much more reliable?

问题描述

我的问题是基于此处的详细信息：

http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Fsoftware%2Fibapi.php [ ^ ]



所以使用Java来插件很多更好的选择？

My question is based on the detail from here:
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Fsoftware%2Fibapi.php[^]

So using Java to Socket is a much better choice?

推荐答案

这是关于Excel的ActiveX如何与VBA交互的误解。



见这个 [ ^ ]有关该特定软件和丢失事件的详细说明。 />


就Java->套接字而言，这是一个意见问题，并且在您引用的网页中确实缺少上下文。仅从那个页面，我不会说它是最好的做任何事情的方式，在某些情况下可能会更好，但其他情况可能不会。

This is a misconception about how Excel's ActiveX interacts with the VBA.

See this[^] for a detailed explanation about that specific software and "losing" events.

As far as Java->Sockets, that's a matter of opinion and really lacks context in the web page you are referencing. From that page alone, I would not say its the "best" way of doing anything, it may be better in certain situations, but others it may not.

他们的声明可能基于糟糕的代码设计然后是ActiveX中的一些固有缺陷。它确实跳出来，他们称之为VB to ActiveX。如果你通过ActiveX对象从vb调用他们的API，那么是的......我可以看到在快速发生的情况下事件可能会丢失的地方。但这种类型的设置从未设计用于高性能。这有点像呻吟，你的Vespa踏板车无法跟上高速公路。



但是，如果你想为他们的API构建你自己的应用程序，写作Java或.Net中的某些东西同样有效，因为在这两种情况下你都会进行网络套接字调用。它看起来就像没有.net样本一样。

Their claim is probably based on poor code design then some inherent flaw in ActiveX. It did jump out to me that they called it "VB to ActiveX". If you are calling their API from vb via an ActiveX object then yes... I could see where events might get lost in a rapid-fire situation. But that type of setup was never designed for high performance. That is sort of like moaning that your Vespa scooter can't keep up on the freeway.

However, if you want to build you own app for their API, writing something in Java or .Net would be equally performant because you would make net socket calls in both cases. It just looks like there in no .net sample to look at.

这篇关于ActiveX可以丢失事件吗？ Java to Socket更可靠？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！