Re: Remoting a Reflected Object
From: Tom Hall (nospam_at_harmonyit.com)
Date: 03/27/04
- Next message: Sunny: "Re: Communication between Web Services, Windows Services and Remoting"
- Previous message: Santhosh Pillai [MS]: "Re: Remoting expertise needed in Baltimore"
- In reply to: Livingston George: "Re: Remoting a Reflected Object"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:33:53 -0500
Well, actually you can use interfaces - its just tricky to create the object
(fortunately Ingo Rammer has solved it)!
Check out this article - I have use his technique extensively in my
projects - it works.
http://www.ingorammer.com/RemotingFAQ/USEINTERFACESWITHCONFIGFILES.html
Tom
"Livingston George" <livingston.george@innova-team.com> wrote in message
news:%23$TgSZ0EEHA.712@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Allen,
>
> Can I know how you achieved this?
>
> I mean, Can I see some code?
> I wonder how the Server Application instanciates the Reflected object!
>
> I initially, had my ShareDll classes has Interfaces only.
> But, an Interface cannot be inherited from MarshalByRefObj rite?
> So I could not use it.
>
> But May be I should inherit the Implementation class from MarshalByRefObj
> and Implement my ShareDll.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Livingston.
>
> "Allen Anderson" <allen@sparkysystems.com> wrote in message
> news:670660l1ufq66qusud1kar458vagr3nmgt@4ax.com...
> > yes, I understand what your trying to get to now. That's a tough call
> > though.
> >
> > I did something similar where I wanted to be able to upgrade the
> > object and I used an interface instead of an abstract class. This
> > gave me the looser type checking but still allowed me to dynamically
> > replace the files without it screaming at me about incorrect versions
> > of objects.
> >
> >
> > Allen Anderson
> > http://www.glacialcomponents.com
> > mailto: allen@put my website url here.com
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:00:43 +0530, "Livingston George"
> > <livingston.george@innova-team.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Allen,
> > >
> > >I have 2 Components / assemblies. a. MainModule. and
b.DataServerModule.
> > >
> > >DataServerModule is referring to MainModule. And main module should not
> be
> > >dependent on DataServerModule. Reason is, DataServerModule can be
> replaced
> > >by another module in the future.
> > >But the DataServerModule should be dynamically callable by MainModule.
> > >The DataServerModule has classes implementing few Interfaces. On these
> > >interfaces the MainModule will make method calls.
> > >
> > >The DataServerModule is also implementing a Callback Interface Object
> which
> > >will be used by remote clients to send data by calling methods on it.
> > >For this I need to publish the Callback Object.
> > >
> > >This is the Scenario.
> > >
> > >First I was planning to Host both Modules in separate applications so
> that I
> > >can achieve the MainModule's independency but the DataServerModule
again
> had
> > >to have an access to MainModule and its objects. So I could not move
> these
> > >two assemblies to two different processes. If I do then it means, More
> > >remoting objects on both the assemblies. More metadata dlls (like your
> > >ShareDLL).
> > >
> > >So, I was trying to use reflection to get the DataServerModule loaded.
> > >I was assuming if the publishing is done by the Callback Object itself,
> the
> > >MainModule is totally independent of handling DataServerModule.
> > >
> > >Without using Reflection publishing from the object itself works fine.
> But
> > >when I do the same looks like Publishing fails.
> > >
> > >I think now you have a good idea of what I am trying to achieve.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Livingston.
> > >
>
>
- Next message: Sunny: "Re: Communication between Web Services, Windows Services and Remoting"
- Previous message: Santhosh Pillai [MS]: "Re: Remoting expertise needed in Baltimore"
- In reply to: Livingston George: "Re: Remoting a Reflected Object"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|