RE: multiple named objects with the same name andinterface

Question

David,
First I will start by saying that this can be done by using named anchored
objects and registering them yourself in the name service. There is
documentation on how to do this. And by default you will get most of the
behavior you desire. When you do a lookup in the name service (BindObject
method) it will first look in the local partition and see if there is a
local copy and give you that copy. By anchoring the object and manually
registering it in the name service you are programmatically creating your
own SO without defining it as such in the development environment. BTW in
response to your item number 1. This should be the case there as well. If
your "mobile" object is in the same partition where the service object he is
calling resides, you should get a handle to the local instance of the
service object.
Here is the catch, if you make a bind object call and there is no local copy
you will get a handle to a remote copy but you can not be sure which one!
It end ups as more or less a random selection. Off the top of my head and
without going to the doc, I am pretty sure that when you register an
anchored object you can not limit it's visibility to "User".
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[<a href="mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]]On</a> Behalf Of David Foote
Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 4:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: multiple named objects with the same name and interface
All,
More than once, I have wished that Forte allowed you to place named
objects with the same name in more than one partition. There are two
situations in which this seems desirable:
1) Objects that are not distributed, but are mobile (passed by value to
remote objects), cannot safely reference a Service Object unless it has
environment visibility, but this forces the overhead of a remote method
call when it might not otherwise be necessary. If it were possible to
place a copy of the same Service Object (with user visibility) in each
partition, the overhead of a remote method call could be avoided. This
would only be useful for a service object whose state could be safely
replicated.
2) My second scenario also involves mobile objects referencing a Service
Object, but this time I would like the behavior of the called Service
Object to differ with the partition from which it is called.
This could be accomplished by placing Service Objects with the same name
and the same interface in each partition, but varying the implementation
with the partition.
Does anyone have any thoughts about why this would be a good thing or a
bad thing?
David N. Foote
Consultant
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href=
"http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</a>
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:<a href=
"http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/">http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/</a>>
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:<a href=
"http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/">http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/</a>>

Answer 1

David,
First I will start by saying that this can be done by using named anchored
objects and registering them yourself in the name service. There is
documentation on how to do this. And by default you will get most of the
behavior you desire. When you do a lookup in the name service (BindObject
method) it will first look in the local partition and see if there is a
local copy and give you that copy. By anchoring the object and manually
registering it in the name service you are programmatically creating your
own SO without defining it as such in the development environment. BTW in
response to your item number 1. This should be the case there as well. If
your "mobile" object is in the same partition where the service object he is
calling resides, you should get a handle to the local instance of the
service object.
Here is the catch, if you make a bind object call and there is no local copy
you will get a handle to a remote copy but you can not be sure which one!
It end ups as more or less a random selection. Off the top of my head and
without going to the doc, I am pretty sure that when you register an
anchored object you can not limit it's visibility to "User".
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[<a href="mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]]On</a> Behalf Of David Foote
Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 4:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: multiple named objects with the same name and interface
All,
More than once, I have wished that Forte allowed you to place named
objects with the same name in more than one partition. There are two
situations in which this seems desirable:
1) Objects that are not distributed, but are mobile (passed by value to
remote objects), cannot safely reference a Service Object unless it has
environment visibility, but this forces the overhead of a remote method
call when it might not otherwise be necessary. If it were possible to
place a copy of the same Service Object (with user visibility) in each
partition, the overhead of a remote method call could be avoided. This
would only be useful for a service object whose state could be safely
replicated.
2) My second scenario also involves mobile objects referencing a Service
Object, but this time I would like the behavior of the called Service
Object to differ with the partition from which it is called.
This could be accomplished by placing Service Objects with the same name
and the same interface in each partition, but varying the implementation
with the partition.
Does anyone have any thoughts about why this would be a good thing or a
bad thing?
David N. Foote
Consultant
Get Your Private, Free Email at <a href=
"http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</a>
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:<a href=
"http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/">http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/</a>>
To unsubscribe, email '[email protected]' with
'unsubscribe forte-users' as the body of the message.
Searchable thread archive <URL:<a href=
"http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/">http://pinehurst.sageit.com/listarchive/</a>>