[boost] Re: RPC library

From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-03 12:34:47

"Jarl Lindrud" wrote:

>> - Is it possible to return an interface as an [out] parameter, receiving 
>> a
>> proxy to a remoted object?
>>
>> - Is it possible to pass an interface as an [in] parameter, having the
>> receiver receive a proxy to the original object?
>>
>
> Both are possible.
>
H. S. Lahman list available options and argues that passing
anything else than values is dangerous and causes high coupling:
http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=3B86C364.AB1A6066%40worldnet.att.net
(the paragraphs starting with "pure message").

Maybe the library could have something as safe mode
enabled by macro (RPC_ONLY_SAFE_FUNCTIONALITY).

Erlang, for example, has only asynchronous messages with passing
of values. The language is (technological) success and this
"limitation" was quoted as one of reasons (it makes deadlocks
hard, frex).

>> - Did you consider implement cross-process reference counted lifetime
>> management (ala DCOM)?
>
> I'm not sure that the reference counting semantics of DCOM are one of its 
> better
> points... Requiring a remote client to correctly call AddRef() and 
> Release() is
> pretty fragile, IMO.
>
Yes. Counting semantic is usability mistake, at least according to:
http://www.relisoft.com/win32/olerant.html

/Pavel