Re: .NET and multithread networks server application

Remoting isnt as fast as real raw sockets but you do get a lot with it.
Remoting isnt just about sending an object down a wire but about getting
remote object references so you can grab a reference to an object that is
running on another machine and you can call methods on it will run on the
remote machine and return the results to the client.

The fastest way to communicate I believe is to setup a tcpclient and
tcplistner to get a socket to socket connection. Then spit bytes down the
wire by serializing things writing raw bytes.

Also, WCF with binary serialization is faster than remoting as the protocal
has been streamlined.

--
Ciaran O'Donnell
http://wannabedeveloper.spaces.live.com


"David Browne" wrote:



"Cube" <SiliconJaltz05@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166591494.747347.29570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The best and most robust of these is the new Windows Communication
Foundation (WCF) in .NET 3.0.

Windows Communication Foundation
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms735119.aspx



isnt that vista only?

Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 and Vista. The .NET 3.0 Runtime ships
on vista, and is available as a free download for XP SP2 and Server 2003.


Other good options are Web Services
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx

and .NET Remoting.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/remoting/default.aspx


Remoting may be interesting we have just had a play with it, security
looks like an issue.


Why?

All of these are substantially simpler than coding TCP/IP and provide
simple
mechanisms to call methods and marshal objects across networks. Of
course
.NET also has easy access to TCP/IP sockets so if you really want to
write
code at that level, you can.


We may just do that, it what we did in win32, however if Remoting will
handle alot of the plumbing we need we will use it.

Remoting is much easier and basically as fast as raw sockets. But using
Binary Serialization together with TCP/IP sockets in .NET is not really
difficult. It's just that Web Services, Remoting and WCF are all easier and
more interoperable.

David


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Programatically enbling Wireless
    ... Remoting: remember that remoting is *not supported* in the Compact ... You should be able to use whatever time-out you want with sockets, ... If the wireless card loses contact, ... > reliable wireless communications with a desktop running a c# ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework)
  • Re: Remoting and Sockets
    ... you need I'd definitly go with remoting... ... the power of your server on the local machine... ... It's a bit more complicated to find documentation for sockets in .NET ... provided that individual would have sole control until they logged out, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting)
  • Re: Sockets or Remoting?
    ... Remoting is basically just TCP sockets. ... serilized types. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting)
  • Re: Asynchronous socket programming vs. remoting
    ... You are the first person that said I should use sockets. ... them quicker than I can load them from my harddrive using the file system. ... of 30 secs and it returned all images without a hitch. ... > remoting and is a better choice for what I am doing but that it is ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting)
  • Re: Asynchronous socket programming vs. remoting
    ... You are the first person that said I should use sockets. ... them quicker than I can load them from my harddrive using the file system. ... of 30 secs and it returned all images without a hitch. ... > remoting and is a better choice for what I am doing but that it is ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
Loading