[Mono-list] remoting mono with MS' CLR?
Thong (Tum) Nguyen
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:58:30 +1200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:mono-list-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Sunday, 6 July 2003 3:02 a.m.
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [Mono-list] remoting mono with MS' CLR?
> At 07:39 PM 26/06/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> >> Hi, I was wondering if anyone had any experience using remoting
> >> TCP connection between Mono and Microsoft's implementation of the
> >> have a sample program that works on mono when remoting to the local
> >> well as when remoting between two windows machines, but between
> >> windows it crashes, regardless of which is the server or client.
> >> without using cygwin, which I can't use for this for various
> >> this supposed to be working at this point in Mono's development? I
> >> want to know if the error is on my end or should I try to find
> >> to try with this project.
> >> Much thanks in advance for any help on this.
> >> -Joe
> >The TcpChannel and the BinaryFormatter is (or should be) compatible
> >MS.NET. However, some classes from the library may have a different
> >representation, because they may have a different internal data
> >so for example you won't be able to exchange a Hastable object
> >and MS.NET. It should not be a problem if you are using primitive
> >arrays or your own classes. In any case, could you post a test case?
> I have been thinking about this issue for some time now, and the more
> think about it, the more of a serious issue it seems to be. Collection
> types are very commonly used, and if they are not compatible with
> between MS .NET and mono, an entire section of the market (so to say)
> be unavailable.
> It would in theory be possible to provide mono's remoting with some
> to translate the binary format of collections to/from
> formats, right within the remoting layer. How much work would this be?
> might be able to contribute it myself, but I am not sure where to
> I can't think of any reason why a solution such as this would be
> contrary to mono's vision, but if such reasons exist please let me
Serializing the collection classes would require the collection classes
to be an exact clone of the Microsoft classes. Not only do the field
names have to match exactly, but the underlying implementation
(how/when/where those fields are used) has to match exactly too.