My grand boss ... if someone had told me this a year back ... but it turns out that it is a great blessing ... anyways .... My grand boss, the magnificient Doug Purdy points to our best kept secret: You can actually do Remoting-style distributed objects with WCF as Sowmy and Michael explain.

Update: Tomas Restrepo asks why that is good. Let me clarify: I think the transparent, distributed objects way of doing things is very problematic, but there are some scenarios where they are a feasible solution and there are migration scenarios where you don't have much of a choice. As a platform provider, we have a mainstream path (SO) that we prefer and that's represented in our turnkey scenarios, but we cannot and will not be as dogmatic as to shut the door on different architecture styles. We don't do that on REST/POX on one side and we don't do that on distributed objects on the other side of the spectrum.

Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:18:34 PM UTC
Clemens,

Don't get me wrong, I can totally understand why this would be interesting to have to facilitate migration from .NET remoting, where this is pretty common, but I was still surprised that work was put into this (which I imagine wasn't all that easy) given how since the beginning ms has said that migration from remoting was not gonna be easy and to expect quite a bit of reworking. Also, I always presumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the duplex contract stuff would be helpful in solving at least some of these scenarios.

I would certainly love to be enlightened about the other scenarios you mention that are not related to migrating from older technologies. Honestly, it's good that you guys are open to supporting multiple paradigms, but this one really did surprise me a little bit :)
Comments are closed.