Boost logo

Boost :

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:
(the paragraphs starting with "pure message").

Maybe the library could have something as safe mode

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:


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at