Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. .NET (Core and Framework)
  4. Remoting with Interfaces

Remoting with Interfaces

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved .NET (Core and Framework)
questioncsharpsysadminalgorithmsworkspace
1 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L Offline
    L Offline
    liRetro
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Hello, I'm using .NET 2.0 and setting up a remoting interface for a Windows Service. I like to be in control of how other applications use the service so I wanted to specify that client applications should only use the remoted object via an interface. My question is - Can I setup a client activated object so that clients don't have to know about the object class type (beyond the interface)? So far I have made this work for the server activated (singleton) styled remoted object. This works fine using (ISomeInterface) Activator.GetObject( SomeInterfaceType, ....), but when I try something similar with Activator.CreateInstance( SomeInterfaceType, ... ) the system complains I need a MarshalByRefObject type :( . I understand why it's refusing to activate the object, but I'm wondering if there is a way around this. BTW: If you are wondering why I want to use Client activated, it's because there is a future possibility of per client session information that needs to be evaluated per call. If each client has it's own object, then the instance can contain the session information. If I had to store per client session information in a singleton it would involve a lot more management complexity (add more code to maintain, slow things down at runtime, etc..).

    Assert(this);

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups