COM+ Alternatives in .NET
-
I have been reading articles on using COM+ in .NET, however most of them discourage its use for new applications. What is the recommended alternative(s)? I am building a client/server app and was going to make the Server a COM+ object and access it through .NET Remoting. Should I be using a Windows Service or something else. I would prefer to stay away from webservices due to the sensitive nature of the application. Thnaks. Steve Not all who wander are lost...
-
I have been reading articles on using COM+ in .NET, however most of them discourage its use for new applications. What is the recommended alternative(s)? I am building a client/server app and was going to make the Server a COM+ object and access it through .NET Remoting. Should I be using a Windows Service or something else. I would prefer to stay away from webservices due to the sensitive nature of the application. Thnaks. Steve Not all who wander are lost...
First of all, you probably don't need COM+ if you don't need absolute reliability or object pooling. The MS documentation is a total fake about COM+. That's not a framework with drag&drop and voila! That's a predefined set of interfaces that YOU must implement without any help at all, that may provide, if you're lucky enough, some form of transaction, reliability, object pooling. Be sure to understand that what COM+ gives you is the theory behind it. You may have spent a couple weeks inventing the wheel. With explained interfaces you just have to figure out the code for the interfaces. And that's where the trick lies, because from a standard component, you'll get object pooling not only by implementing the adequate COM+ interfaces, but by making your current implementation stateless and so on, which in fact requires a total code reengineering. Besides that, COM+ is very hard to handle. No matter how many articles you have in MSDN library, MSDN mag, and so on, I am not sure any one achieved an implementation in the real world. AFAIK, I would either : - stick with standard COM, and add a small proprietary layer for storing state and so on - make my company buy a real COM+ framework implementation to play with. Don't know if that exists (equivalent of Iona's Corba for COM+).
-
First of all, you probably don't need COM+ if you don't need absolute reliability or object pooling. The MS documentation is a total fake about COM+. That's not a framework with drag&drop and voila! That's a predefined set of interfaces that YOU must implement without any help at all, that may provide, if you're lucky enough, some form of transaction, reliability, object pooling. Be sure to understand that what COM+ gives you is the theory behind it. You may have spent a couple weeks inventing the wheel. With explained interfaces you just have to figure out the code for the interfaces. And that's where the trick lies, because from a standard component, you'll get object pooling not only by implementing the adequate COM+ interfaces, but by making your current implementation stateless and so on, which in fact requires a total code reengineering. Besides that, COM+ is very hard to handle. No matter how many articles you have in MSDN library, MSDN mag, and so on, I am not sure any one achieved an implementation in the real world. AFAIK, I would either : - stick with standard COM, and add a small proprietary layer for storing state and so on - make my company buy a real COM+ framework implementation to play with. Don't know if that exists (equivalent of Iona's Corba for COM+).
Thanks for the reply. If you were me, what would you do? I am using .NET and have been told not to use COM+ but don't know what else todo. Thanks. Steve Not all who wander are lost...
-
Thanks for the reply. If you were me, what would you do? I am using .NET and have been told not to use COM+ but don't know what else todo. Thanks. Steve Not all who wander are lost...
I would indeed suggest .Net and especially System.Remoting Many sites have working implementations beyond the ones found in .Net framework doc : - mastercsharp.com - dotnet247.com - dotnetjunkies - ... Good luck!
Let's swallow a small raisin.