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
>> 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:
(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
>> - 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
> 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:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk