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


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting

Best Practice

sbparsons

11/3/2004 11:04:00 PM

Apologies in advance for the long post, but I hope it will prove useful to me
and others following the thread.

My current application spec is to develop a pre-sales presentation tool
(PowerPoint). The presentation is to include coverage maps that show the
locations of our stock. I am using a third party COM object to generate these
maps, but this COM object can exist only on the map server. So...

1. I have created a .net wrapper around the COM object (interop) on the map
server which is successfully generating maps
2. I have a singlecall/singleton listener (both work with varying degrees of
success) on the map server waiting for client calls - not sure if this should
now be a client activated object
3. I have a client that will make those calls - marshalling events through a
common assembly
4. The client must spawn threads to multitask the map making and the
PowerPoint automation
5. I need client cancel functionality to stop all processing on client and
server if requested.
6. I need client notification from the map server when the maps have been
generated (or errors raised)

I have had good feedback on individual issues that I've posted so far
(thanks Ken and CT) but here is an overview of what's required. Any feedback
on the best practice architecture for this solution (with justifications if
you have the time) would help me (and hopefully other new remoting
developers) greatly. Also, raising any potential threading issues with
regards to multiple clients calling the COM wrapper based on your recommended
choice of architecture would be a help.

Thanks in advance,

Sean
2 Answers

eddysterckx@hotmail.com

11/19/2009 9:52:00 PM

0

On Nov 18, 11:46 pm, Graham Thurlwell <nos...@jades.org> wrote:
> On the 18 Nov 2009, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 nov, 21:16, old.s...@cmaaccess.com wrote:
> >>         Don't get me started on "Shipping and Handling" rip off
> >> charges
> > Guess why people are more than ready to embrace digital downloads ...
>
> For me, the main reason I haven't is that I've been on dialup and most
> digital downloads would take an eternity. Is WCNAW really only 8MB?

Yes - though the 1.04 patch is a huge 2 MB in addition to that :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Wile E. Coyote

11/20/2009 5:39:00 AM

0

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:

> We were robbed - right ? - wrong - the price setting in London was
> *exactly* right. It made for excellent gifts. If they had put it at
> 2.99 they'd have sold *less* units, never mind in total sales, because
> people would consider that too cheap to give as a present.
>

Yea, sure. Keep telling yourself that and one day you may actually
believe it and won't feel like such a sucker any more.