G
Guest
Hi,
I'm developing an application server to which clients will connect over the
network. This server has a variety of entry points, and remoting seems well
suited for those clients written in .NET.
However there are two simple functions that will be accessed from unmanaged
C++, and possibly Java one day. For these I'm considering utilising a
straightforward custom binary protocol. The C++/Java client can open a
socket, send request bytes, then marshal the returned bytes into a local
structure.
I'm comfortable setting up the .NET-to-.NET portion, but am not sure how to
go about the interop bit. Do I create another remoting entry-point on a
TcpChannel that has it's own binary formatter? If so, what overhead does
remoting add to the underlying socket stream? I'm trying to establish
whether I can leverage the server support of IIS rather than write my own
asynchronous TcpListener server. If I can get remoting to work for simple
requests (that return simple structures, such as arrays of floats, strings,
etc, all of which are in an agreed upon structure and hence need not be self
describing or extensible) without adding many more bytes to the stream than
those I control with my FormatterSinks, then coding the equivalent formatter
in C++/Java should be easy.
Hope this makes sense and that someone can help me out of my confusion here.
Kind regards,
Drew Noakes.
I'm developing an application server to which clients will connect over the
network. This server has a variety of entry points, and remoting seems well
suited for those clients written in .NET.
However there are two simple functions that will be accessed from unmanaged
C++, and possibly Java one day. For these I'm considering utilising a
straightforward custom binary protocol. The C++/Java client can open a
socket, send request bytes, then marshal the returned bytes into a local
structure.
I'm comfortable setting up the .NET-to-.NET portion, but am not sure how to
go about the interop bit. Do I create another remoting entry-point on a
TcpChannel that has it's own binary formatter? If so, what overhead does
remoting add to the underlying socket stream? I'm trying to establish
whether I can leverage the server support of IIS rather than write my own
asynchronous TcpListener server. If I can get remoting to work for simple
requests (that return simple structures, such as arrays of floats, strings,
etc, all of which are in an agreed upon structure and hence need not be self
describing or extensible) without adding many more bytes to the stream than
those I control with my FormatterSinks, then coding the equivalent formatter
in C++/Java should be easy.
Hope this makes sense and that someone can help me out of my confusion here.
Kind regards,
Drew Noakes.