Coffeehouse Thread

11 posts

Any experience with remoting?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Chadk

    I guess this is the right place to ask this.
    I need a way to communicate across the internet, in a stateful way(You are to blame littleguru for this).
    WCF can offer me this, but i find it as a pain in the... to work with, having to create an object from the wsdl manually all the time, and making sure that the XML it makes is right(Even WCF have failed me at this, its broken for no reason).

    So im thinking about remoting.
    Does anybody have experience with this?
    Or is there any way else i can get a stated way of communication?

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Chadk wrote:
    
    Sven Groot wrote: 
    Chadk wrote: non-stateless

    I don't have anything really useful to say about this, but I'd just like to say that the opposite of stateless is statefull.
    Fantastic. I were in doubt about that

    Damn, you replied before I could edit the typo. It's actually stateful, with only one l.

  • User profile image
    Chadk

    Sven Groot wrote:
    
    Chadk wrote: non-stateless

    I don't have anything really useful to say about this, but I'd just like to say that the opposite of stateless is stateful.
    Fantastic. I were in doubt about that Big Smile

  • User profile image
    Chadk

    Sven Groot wrote:
    
    Chadk wrote: 
    Sven Groot wrote: 
    Chadk wrote: non-stateless

    I don't have anything really useful to say about this, but I'd just like to say that the opposite of stateless is statefull.
    Fantastic. I were in doubt about that

    Damn, you replied before I could edit the typo. It's actually stateful, with only one l.

    Fixed[H]

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Chadk wrote:
    non-stateless

    I don't have anything really useful to say about this, but I'd just like to say that the opposite of stateless is stateful. Smiley

  • User profile image
    littleguru
  • User profile image
    Minh

    Remoting is a pain in the a&& to work with.

    Not only do you go through all the config headaches, you have to distribute your server-side DLL onto the client (to serve as a "proxy") so you don't even get instant update like a web app.

    Use WCF -- I hear it's just much better.

    Or just build a Web service.

    Stay away from Remoting Tongue Out It's a dead-end technology.

  • User profile image
    Arran

    Minh wrote:
    Remoting is a pain in the a&& to work with.

    Not only do you go through all the config headaches, you have to distribute your server-side DLL onto the client (to serve as a "proxy") so you don't even get instant update like a web app.

    Use WCF -- I hear it's just much better.

    Or just build a Web service.

    Stay away from Remoting It's a dead-end technology.


    You don't need to put your server .dlls on the client at all.  If you have a good solution which all objects in a shared assembly that will be sent by value over the remoting link then you are fine.  If you do ByRef method calls or object manipulation then keep your interfaces in the shared assembly as well.

    I have used remoting as the core communication for a very large .net project and it works really well.  I am however looking at upgrading the whole lot to WCF for some of the more advanced features they have introduced.

  • User profile image
    bgmacaw

    I did an app with remoting about 2 years ago now in VS2003 and found that is was a pain to get things to work right. It seemed like there were constant configuration headaches, connectivity issues, and other troubles. It never got deployed into full production because of these problems along with semi-unrelated political wrangling at that company.

    OTOH, I recently completed a Web Services app in VS2005. Development and testing went very smoothly and deployment and day-to-day operation have been very reliable. It has about 3000 connections a day right now and we're continuing to scale up by adding more clients.

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    Remoting is good, but also have different pains.  WCF is the right call.  Just have to get over the learning hump.  Actually, it is pretty easy after you "get" it.  What you now call a pain, is actually one of the coolest features of WCF.  The client and Server implementations are loose, that means you can Version them seperately and the client is not bound to any server clr type/dll - only data contracts.  So this actually makes things much simplier going forward.  Also, just think of the DataContracts as just simple data transfer objects (DTO).  They don't even need to match on both sides (with some restrictions) - hence the version tolerance.    There are some other cool things over Remoting such as ability to make your ctor() private and ability to serialize fields and/or properties - either public or private.  So your biz class may require only getters, but wcf can still create a DTO using your private fields.  Can go on, but wcf seems like the better investment in time.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    Arran wrote:
    
    You don't need to put your server .dlls on the client at all.  If you have a good solution which all objects in a shared assembly that will be sent by value over the remoting link then you are fine. If you do ByRef method calls or object manipulation then keep your interfaces in the shared assembly as well.

    Oh yeah? I gave up on Remoting pretty quickly because I had much more control with Sockets & I didn't have to buy into all the semtantics.

    I just didn't see how Remoting was better than a more simple web service.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.