Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
Could you compare your approach to: http://www.codeproject.com/threads/RMI_For_Cpp.asp
Properties of the proposed library (as compared to "RMI for Cpp"): - no need for macros. - on the server side, interface-operations are bound to functors, at runtime. - interface and operations are expressed in template-metaprogramming style, which may be less familiar (more complex) to developers. - CORBA-like object semantics with support for "transient" instances. For example, when you construct a client-proxy, out of a portable stringified reference, currently URI, you are pointing at a concrete stub/servant instance. If that stub/servant was brought down, your reference is no longer valid and "transient" exception is thrown on any operations against it. In other words, say TCP address and port are not pointing at a servant yet. It takes "instance id", think of it as `this' pointer in C++, to reach a particular servant. Why this is considered important? Because it allows for stateful remote objects. You can construct N-number of instances of the same class of servant, and each one will have a distinguishing reference that the client can call. - abstracted transport layer. Support for transports such as raw TCP, HTTP, or Unix sockets. For example, a single servant could be reached from different transports at the same time without knowing, nor caring, how the request originated. Cheers, Slawomir