[Mono-dev] Re moting between dotnet framework and mono framework

[lionel.cuir at aulofee.com]

Hi,

To Robert Jordan: you said: "You can expect 100% compatibility with custom
classes (those you've designed yourself). Basic BCL classes (ArrayList,
Hashtable) are also compatible, but it's safer to not depend on classes that
are not under your control."

Has there been any advance on this area since 1 year? As for me (but please
correct me if needed), there are still basic BCL classes whose binary
serialization is not compatible between Mono and .Net. Ex: Dictionary<K,V>
(well, you may say that it's not a bscic BCL class...), there is/was also
the problem on DateTime, depending on the way you serialize it (see
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=325067).

To Eric: since Mono developpers did not have access to MS's spec (and didn't
disassemble any code), only the public members of BCL classes were guaranted
to be the same - private fields can be whatever the developer wanted. So
many classes have a binary format 100% compatible between both platforms,
but some not. In my company, we are transfering data in binary format
between Mono and .Net and, from our experience, you have to test (what some
Mono developers pitifully didn't do - nobody is perfect).

Apart from that, Mono rocks - for sure.

Regards
Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com] De la part de Eric45
Envoyé : mercredi 11 mars 2009 17:28
À : mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
Objet : Re: [Mono-dev] Re moting between dotnet framework and mono framework


Thanks for your support


Alan McGovern-2 wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I just want to know if my serialiazed objects will come through client 
> MS
>> dotnet and server MONO without problem.
> 
> 
> The first response by Robert said:
> 
> They are supported.
>>
> 
> and
> 
> You can expect 100% compatibility with custom classes (those you've
>> designed yourself).
> 
> 
> So yes, you can expect it to work.
> 
> Alan
> 
> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Jerome Haltom wrote:
>> >
>> > These questions are all answered on MSDN in the documentation
>> describing
>> > how works. Look into MarshalByRefObjects, ObjRef, transparent 
>> > proxies and real proxies.
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 08:36 -0700, Eric45 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps i was not enough precise in my question.
>> >>
>> >> I want to make a DOTnet client on windows running above Microsoft
>> DOTnet
>> >> framework 2.0.
>> >> Then i have a DOTnet server on linux running above MONO.
>> >>
>> >> So i am asking myself if remoting will be compliant.
>> >> Lets take an example.
>> >>
>> >> If the client pass a serialized object (one of my ISerializable 
>> >> class) lets named it Class1.
>> >> How the MONO server make the link with its own class Class1 
>> >> (exactly
>> the
>> >> same) to reconstruct it ?
>> >> How it makes the link between Class1 on Windows DOTnet and the 
>> >> Class1
>> on
>> >> MONO ? Because the class has same name in same dll name and same 
>> >> namespace ?
>> >> That i do not understand.
>> >>
>> >> For reference, MarshalledByRef, i think all is ok because it is 
>> >> only a pointer on a proxy and an Interface. So i imagine it works.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Robert Jordan wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Eric45 wrote:
>> >> >> Is it possible to have a remoting MONO server working on linux
>> being
>> >> >> contacted by a DONET windows remoting client ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes.
>> >> >
>> >> >> If yes how the compliance is made between objects passed by
>> reference
>> >> ?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't understand this question. Do you mean MarshalByRefObjects?
>> >> > They are supported.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Same question about objects passed by serialization ?
>> >> >
>> >> > You can expect 100% compatibility with custom classes (those 
>> >> > you've designed yourself).
>> >> >
>> >> > Basic BCL classes (ArrayList, Hashtable) are also compatible, 
>> >> > but it's safer to not depend on classes that are not under your 
>> >> > control.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Mono-devel-list mailing list
>> >> > Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com 
>> >> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mono-devel-list mailing list
>> > Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
>> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Remoting-between-dotnet-framework-and-mono-fram
>> ework-tp22451273p22458037.html Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list 
>> archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mono-devel-list mailing list
>> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
> 
> 

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Remoting-between-dotnet-framework-and-mono-framework-t
p22451273p22458925.html
Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list