[boost] Re: RPC library

From: Johan Nilsson (johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-04 04:27:08

"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:d07hih$veg$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>
> "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").
>

If you use well-defined interfaces I can't see how that would cause any 
higher coupling than during normal circumstances (remoting aside). A pretty 
common usage would be implementing the Observer pattern cross-process.

[snip]

>>
> Yes. Counting semantic is usability mistake, at least according to:
> http://www.relisoft.com/win32/olerant.html

That's a rant alright, which would seem to include shared_ptr's as well - 
or?

// Johan