Re: [boost] Interest in Remote Procedure Call Library?

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in Remote Procedure Call Library?
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-10 17:32:17

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Rutger ter Borg <rutger_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> // server
>>
>> SomeClass   myclass;
>> Server                myserver( &myclass, "my.named.service" );
>>
>> // client
>>
>> RemoteInterface<SomeClass> Â ri( "my.named.service" );
>> int result = ri.add(1,4); assert( result == 5 )
>> ri.sub( 5, 1, &result ); Â assert( result == 4 );
>> ri.inout(result); Â assert( result == 9 );
>>
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> I'm interested. Is the assumption of classes and member functions needed?
> What about mimicking the boost::function interface?
>
> asio::io_service ios;
> client m_client( ios, "rpc://server/" );
>
> remote_function< void( int ) > m_func = m_client( "some.resource" );

Yep, that is how mine worked, just based on a Boost.Function interface.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Daniel Larimer <dlarimer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I need to run some benchmarks, but I believe that the "cost" of using a stub<MyClass,default_delegate> vs a direct pointer to MyClass is at most one function call and a member function pointer de-reference and at best, completely inlined so as to be "identical" at run time.
>
> Does anyone have any pointers on how to "compare" the asm generated by a particular line or group of lines of code? Â I would like to see how much inlining is actually going on and monitor the cause/effects of different template/code structures on the resulting code.

If you come up with some benchmarks I would like to compare it to what
I made a couple of years ago (where I was admittedly not as
experienced with such things as I am now), so if you could post the
complete compilable example with included libraries, I am interested.