Talk:Platform Invocation Services

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Microsoft: .NET Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (assessed as Low-importance).

Marshalling in P/Invoke calls.

I removed the claim that "The runtime uses the same data marshaling for PInvoke as is used for COM interoperability... ". A WP search on "marshalling" redirects to "Serialization", and there is certainly no serialization involved in a call across p/invoke, because there is no known serializer/deserializer on the unmanaged side. Leotohill 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this part of the article, but Microsoft uses "marshalling" in their MSDN documentation. Still, as it has no relationship with Serialization, I agree that it can be confusing and that removing it from the header of the article was preferable. I added an explanation in the "Usage" part of the article to explain what "marshalling" means in the P/Invoke context. Hervegirod 11:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more complex example

The article has become nearly incomprehensible, with explicit and implicit sub-chapters everywhere. I tried to fix this by returning to a more standard and clear organization. Still the new example is completely cryptic. I think someone should try to explain it, else maybe we should rm it (it is barely understandable for now) Hervegirod (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not really a specialist on these issues (legacy native code interoperability is not a simple subject on any VM languages), so sorry if my reorganization lead to understandability problems. However, the previous state of the article was really really really difficult to understand for non P/Invoke specialists. In short, this still needs help !!! Hervegirod (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper references

Maybe Microsoft is copying this wiki, but in case it's not, the "Details" section about how P/Invoke works, which is the same as the one from the MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0h9e9t7d%28v=vs.110%29.aspx) should have a reference to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.82.179.93 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated or unsafe links

A lot of the links to software and tools on this page are either outdated, or dead links that link to potentially dangerous sites. I don't think that these links should be on the page and belong somewhere like StackOverflow.--Adrianedelen (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links

There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]