Oh good, you had me kind of worried earlier! My app requires the user to have Mappoint installed on their system, which, I know, negates the whole point of it being a Web application!

I started using the Mappoint activeX control in the early stages of development just to get a feel for how the application as a whole would look and the boss liked it so it stuck.

My application gives users the choice of using several web based mapping solutions including Mappoint Web Service (although not for much longer as it's not currently financially viable ). I've recently had requests for additional functionality to be added to the mappoint activex control and here I am!

I don't expect demand to be that great for the mappoint solution due to it actually needing mappoint installed on the client pc, but for now what the client wants, the client shall get - well providing I can get it to work (I'm now experiencing other problems as well)!!!

One good point of using Mappoint on the Client PC is that I don't get the costs of a pay-as-you-go online mapping solution!

Yes I think the cost of the web service is a big barrier to wider usage.

You could let the user enter their own Web Service subscription info?
Probably not many people will use it, but at least you keep the functionality for the handful who might.


Richard

Yes, allowing users to enter their own Web Service subscription info is a perfectly feasible option, though I'm not sure I would get any takers.

We haven't completely ruled the Web Service out, if we had some more customers the cost of the web service would be easier to absorb!

The cost of online map services has led me to look into open source solutions and I've found a "spatial data renderer" called Map Server, http://ms.gis.umn.edu/ , to be a viable alternative. However you have to supply your own maps and whatever type of mapping data you choose to use will probably have to be bought, so it's not completely free!

Hi,

Originally Posted by mcjwb

I'm not sure that javascript has as complex a calling convention as C#. Objects and arrays are always passed by reference in javascript.

Whell in C# default is by value, but since we are talking about an array, the value in question is a pointer to that array. I assume this is the same in JavaScript. If it is not (eg: when a reference is passed to the variable holding the pointer), then this could be the problem because we are passing then a reference to the pointer that contains the array's address. Can you or someone confirm the calling convention in JavaScript ?

Eventually can you try to 'de'reference the variable when you pass it as parameter ? I have no idea how, possible * or ^ are common used symbols for that.

Am I the only person trying to control the mappoint activeX object with Javascript??? Has no one come across this, or similar, problem before?

Since still nobody has replyed it seems so But of course there are always many people who dont contribute.

Hi,

I googled a little to see how parameters are passed in JavaScript and found the following. Many documents claim that in JavaScript parameters are always passed by value. But in some forums I found a lots of people claiming that array types (like array's and strings) and objects are passed by reference.

They even give examples. However if you study the examples it turns out that it is still passed by value. Passing an array type or object in Javascrpt as in many other languages is passing the address of the array. This means that there is a reference passed to the array but this does not mean that the variable is passed by reference.

Passing by reference means that the address of the variable in question is passed. In case of an array it will be the address of the variable holding the address of the array.

To be exact, an aray type can be passed in a third way too: It can be copied on the stack. And when this should be the case then everyone should say it is passed by value, but this is also wrong because it is a copy

So this sayd does not help you with the mappoint question you posted. In fact my conclusion is that it has nothing to do with calling convention, so I did mis lead you

Still we dont know wy it does not work...