From: Johan Nilsson (johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-04 04:27:08
"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "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").
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.
> Yes. Counting semantic is usability mistake, at least according to:
That's a rant alright, which would seem to include shared_ptr's as well -
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk