Re: Connecting Out of Process Servers via COM+


"Lance Wynn" <lance_wynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eW0UczijFHA.2152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ralph,
> You make some interesting points, the example you provide is along the
lines
> of what I was invisioning. I wonder though if I can simplify it, and do
it
> all in the COM+ environment...
>
> I have mainly used COM+ for remoting objects, and security in the past, Is
> there a setting where I can have COM+ instantiate only one instance of the
> object (In this case, my connection wrapper) and allow client applications
> to "share" this one instance of the COM+ object? If this is possible, how
> would I instantiate the teh object at the client? GetObject? CreateObject?
> When one client sent a command, it would have to wait until the command
had
> finished completely before allowing the next client's command through.
>
> What do you think?
>

Whoa!

You missed my point. [Warning: a few rather snide pedantic comments
follows... <g>]

[First pedantic remark:] Get a book.

Can you have COM+ instantiate only one instance? Yes - but this might not be
what you want. COM+ also provides object pooling.
Can multiple clients share one instance of a component? Yes - but this might
not be what you want.
Can I use GetObject? CreateObject? Yes - but this might not be what you
want.

"> When one client sent a command, it would have to wait until the command
had finished completely before allowing the next client's command
through." - Not necessarily. Depends on what you want to do. COM+ provides
asynchronous and synchronous opportunities.

[Pedantic Remark:] Browse, read, and play with sample code...

Here is just the first couple of sites from a Google search of 27,900 ...
http://www.idevresource.com/com/library/articles/com+firstapp.asp
http://www.idevresource.com/com/library/articles/com+objpool.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dncomser/html/complusguide.asp?

[Last pedantic remark: ] Don't try optimizing or 'implementing' until you
get a better grasp of the tools and all the system services available to
you. Write out "what you want to do" - forget "how to do it". The coding
comes later. "Code" what you need to do, don't "Code" what you know how to
write.

Forget about the apparent complexities. Of course it looks complex - you
haven't done it before - its new. However, I guarantee there is an easier
way to implement your solution using COM+ services, than to go about rolling
'ur own.

[I lied. A very last pedantic remark: <g>] Bruce McKinney re-quoted in his
book a very important rule that is useful to always keep in mind when
attempting to 'pre-optimize' or 'pre-implement' a solution -

"It doesn't matter how fast it is, if it doesn't work."

hth
-ralph



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Connecting Out of Process Servers via COM+
    ... I wonder though if I can simplify it, ... there a setting where I can have COM+ instantiate only one instance of the ... and allow client applications ... When one client sent a command, it would have to wait until the command had ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.com)
  • [REVS] Backdoor Spotcom Analysis
    ... Spotcom is a backdoor client application that allows a hacker to control ... The server IP address is hard-coded in ... msrsvp.exe accepts a couple of command line arguments. ... the packet payload. ...
    (Securiteam)
  • [Full-disclosure] Multiple vulnerabilities in Toribash 2.71
    ... C] client unicode buffer-overflow in the SAY command ... D] server crash through uninitialized values ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Multiple vulnerabilities in Toribash 2.71
    ... C] client unicode buffer-overflow in the SAY command ... D] server crash through uninitialized values ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • Re: Input box based upon a list
    ... To populate a combobox (or listbox, you use the .AddItem command. ... ' Open the file containing the client details ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.userforms)
Loading