[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting

Pushing data to a .NET Windows Forms client?

Ted_Graham

8/3/2004 10:28:00 PM

What is the best way to push data out to a .NET windows client? I
plan to have a zero-touch deployment windows forms client and need to
push out messages to that client. The behavior is similar to a stock
quoting application. Messages are coming from the server much more
frequently than from client to server. Client to server calls are web
service calls. Both client and server are written in .NET.

I'm looking for a high level solution, I don't want to think about
sockets. Remoting seems to be the likely candidate, but I've heard
mixed reviews about .NET Remoting and don't have any personal
experience. It often feels like .NET Remoting has already been
deprecated. This is shrinkwrap, not enterprise ware, so the users may
be on the other side of multiple firewalls from the server.

Thanks!
7 Answers

Sunny

8/4/2004 2:57:00 PM

0

Hi,

In article <fea1a1fd.0408031427.55b04612@posting.google.com>,
Ted_Graham@yahoo.com says...
> What is the best way to push data out to a .NET windows client? I
> plan to have a zero-touch deployment windows forms client and need to
> push out messages to that client. The behavior is similar to a stock
> quoting application. Messages are coming from the server much more
> frequently than from client to server. Client to server calls are web
> service calls. Both client and server are written in .NET.
>
> I'm looking for a high level solution, I don't want to think about
> sockets. Remoting seems to be the likely candidate, but I've heard
> mixed reviews about .NET Remoting and don't have any personal
> experience. It often feels like .NET Remoting has already been
> deprecated. This is shrinkwrap, not enterprise ware, so the users may
> be on the other side of multiple firewalls from the server.
>
> Thanks!
>

You have 2 choices in your situation:
1. Start a timer at the client, and call your webservice for updates
every few seconds.

2. You can use remoting. It is good for that, as it supports callbacks
and events. But for proxy/firewall scenario, the build-in channels are
not good. The only working solution I found so far is a third party
channels, like Genuine Channels. They support proxies/firewalls even for
events, and as an extra, they have their own very flexible broadcast
engine, which may be useful for you. The product is not expensive, and
so far meets all my needs. Even it supports transparent reconnection,
and server restart detection.

Sunny
P.S. note that I'm not related to this company, I'm their customer. And
I haven't found something similar as functionality so far. I have heard
for an opensource project, but I haven't tried it yet. Try to search in
this newsgroup for opensource channels to find the link.

Ted Graham

8/4/2004 5:01:00 PM

0

Thanks Sunny. Polling won't work for my situtation.

I've been looking at the GenuineChannels website and samples and was
thinking that it would be a good solution. I'm glad to get some feedback
that it is a solid alternative. For $99 for a single developer license, it
is a deal!

Thanks for the response.

"Sunny" <sunny@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:#8zRENjeEHA.384@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> In article <fea1a1fd.0408031427.55b04612@posting.google.com>,
> Ted_Graham@yahoo.com says...
> > What is the best way to push data out to a .NET windows client? I
> > plan to have a zero-touch deployment windows forms client and need to
> > push out messages to that client. The behavior is similar to a stock
> > quoting application. Messages are coming from the server much more
> > frequently than from client to server. Client to server calls are web
> > service calls. Both client and server are written in .NET.
> >
> > I'm looking for a high level solution, I don't want to think about
> > sockets. Remoting seems to be the likely candidate, but I've heard
> > mixed reviews about .NET Remoting and don't have any personal
> > experience. It often feels like .NET Remoting has already been
> > deprecated. This is shrinkwrap, not enterprise ware, so the users may
> > be on the other side of multiple firewalls from the server.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> You have 2 choices in your situation:
> 1. Start a timer at the client, and call your webservice for updates
> every few seconds.
>
> 2. You can use remoting. It is good for that, as it supports callbacks
> and events. But for proxy/firewall scenario, the build-in channels are
> not good. The only working solution I found so far is a third party
> channels, like Genuine Channels. They support proxies/firewalls even for
> events, and as an extra, they have their own very flexible broadcast
> engine, which may be useful for you. The product is not expensive, and
> so far meets all my needs. Even it supports transparent reconnection,
> and server restart detection.
>
> Sunny
> P.S. note that I'm not related to this company, I'm their customer. And
> I haven't found something similar as functionality so far. I have heard
> for an opensource project, but I haven't tried it yet. Try to search in
> this newsgroup for opensource channels to find the link.

baldeagle

12/30/2008 3:33:00 AM

0

On Dec 30, 11:06 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:45 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 2:58 am, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 1:27 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 26, 1:47 am, Dragon <dra...@newyork.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 25, 2:36 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, Dragon <dra...@newyork.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The nationalizing of a few large troubled companies does not a
> > > > > socialist country make. I have studied, lived and worked in the USA
> > > > > for 7 years now, and I get to socialize with Americans from different
> > > > > walks of life. Socialism is still a dirty word in the USA,
>
> > > > Those are the very people that depends on "social security benefits"
> > > > to live, benefits paid by todays workers for today's retirees.  Many
> > > > people also depends on social wellfare and unemployment benefits,
> > > > medicare and medicaid paid by the states and federal government.
> > > > Also, many retirees got pension plans from large corporations and
> > > > government agencies.
>
> > > > All these and many more are socialist ideas.
>
> > > > America is getting more and more socialist while China is getting more
> > > > and more capitalist.  Both we meet in the middle.
>
> > > When the US economic systems failed,.... banks, insurance,
> > > large corporations will go bankrupt...if the government failed
> > > to step in ... The US government has no choice but to
> > > bail them out, ... take over ..and not let them fail... Bankruptcy
> > > or failure is not an option...it is unthinkable.
>
> > > Socialism is therefore not a  choice ..when only socialist
> > > measures can save the US economy. It is an irony.
>
> > > Is it wrong to adopt socialist measure to save the US
> > > economy ? Will it mean that capitalism is dying in the
> > > USA....to be replaced by socialism?  Certainly not.
>
> > > The socialist measures adopted by the USA are NOT
> > > sure to work its magic. The US economic woes are
> > > far from over. The worst has yet to come.
>
> > > The failure of socialism was, as experienced by socialist
> > > countries like China, ....it made the whole country
> > > bankrupt.
> > > The wealth of the country is wasted on socialist handout...
> > > without creating wealth.
>
> > > The USA is in great danger of wasting its wealth on
> > > handouts.  Handouts to the banks, insurance company
> > > and auto makers are NOT creating wealth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > No. Capitalism is winning. But it is a new kind of capitalism.
>
> For the U.S., this new kind of capitalism is called socialist
> capitalism.
> For China, it is called capitalist socialism.

In Thai English...it is called "same same"

rst0wxyz

12/30/2008 4:15:00 AM

0

On Dec 29, 7:32 pm, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 11:06 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 5:45 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For the U.S., this new kind of capitalism is called socialist
> > capitalism.
> > For China, it is called capitalist socialism.
>
> In Thai English...it is called "same same"

Not quite. For the United States, it is seen as the good guy.
For China, it always classifies as the bad guy.

the Fucking Boudha

12/30/2008 4:58:00 AM

0

Rich in the USA will get Richer ,
and poor will becoming Poorer .

Big Bankss will eat smaller banks to form bigger banks .

time for big profit to be made , if you buy the right stuff in
the next 6 months .










Dec 30, 11:14 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 7:32 pm, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:06 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 29, 5:45 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For the U.S., this new kind of capitalism is called socialist
> > > capitalism.
> > > For China, it is called capitalist socialism.
>
> > In Thai English...it is called "same same"
>
> Not quite.  For the United States, it is seen as the good guy.
> For China, it always classifies as the bad guy.

baldeagle

12/30/2008 5:23:00 AM

0

On Dec 30, 12:14 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > In Thai English...it is called "same same"
>
> Not quite. For the United States, it is seen as the good guy.
> For China, it always classifies as the bad guy.

Good guy like Madoff, Bush and cronies ?

Same same.

ltlee1

1/3/2009 2:37:00 PM

0

On Dec 29 2008, 10:32 pm, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 11:06 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 5:45 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 2:58 am, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 1:27 am, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 1:47 am, Dragon <dra...@newyork.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 25, 2:36 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, Dragon <dra...@newyork.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The nationalizing of a few large troubled companies does not a
> > > > > > socialist country make. I have studied, lived and worked in the USA
> > > > > > for 7 years now, and I get to socialize with Americans from different
> > > > > > walks of life. Socialism is still a dirty word in the USA,
>
> > > > > Those are the very people that depends on "social security benefits"
> > > > > to live, benefits paid by todays workers for today's retirees.  Many
> > > > > people also depends on social wellfare and unemployment benefits,
> > > > > medicare and medicaid paid by the states and federal government.
> > > > > Also, many retirees got pension plans from large corporations and
> > > > > government agencies.
>
> > > > > All these and many more are socialist ideas.
>
> > > > > America is getting more and more socialist while China is getting more
> > > > > and more capitalist.  Both we meet in the middle.
>
> > > > When the US economic systems failed,.... banks, insurance,
> > > > large corporations will go bankrupt...if the government failed
> > > > to step in ... The US government has no choice but to
> > > > bail them out, ... take over ..and not let them fail... Bankruptcy
> > > > or failure is not an option...it is unthinkable.
>
> > > > Socialism is therefore not a  choice ..when only socialist
> > > > measures can save the US economy. It is an irony.
>
> > > > Is it wrong to adopt socialist measure to save the US
> > > > economy ? Will it mean that capitalism is dying in the
> > > > USA....to be replaced by socialism?  Certainly not.
>
> > > > The socialist measures adopted by the USA are NOT
> > > > sure to work its magic. The US economic woes are
> > > > far from over. The worst has yet to come.
>
> > > > The failure of socialism was, as experienced by socialist
> > > > countries like China, ....it made the whole country
> > > > bankrupt.
> > > > The wealth of the country is wasted on socialist handout...
> > > > without creating wealth.
>
> > > > The USA is in great danger of wasting its wealth on
> > > > handouts.  Handouts to the banks, insurance company
> > > > and auto makers are NOT creating wealth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > No. Capitalism is winning. But it is a new kind of capitalism.
>
> > For the U.S., this new kind of capitalism is called socialist
> > capitalism.
> > For China, it is called capitalist socialism.
>
> In Thai English...it is called "same same"

A certain congress women had wondering aloud how come the 700 billion
dollar bail out package did not come with any string for the banks to
increase lending to would be borrowers like a similar bail out plan.
Of course the difference reflects the different negotiation position
of the banking groups. Nevertheless, it is clear the targets of the
bail out are not average citizens, but capitalists. Not only American
capitalists, but all capitalist who have invested in American debts.



> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -