"Cameron Laird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roger Upole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Cameron Laird wrote:
>>> QOTW: "That is just as feasible as passing a cruise ship through a phone
>>> line." - Carsten Haese, on transporting a COM object across a network.
>>> Less vividly but more formally, as he notes, "A COM object represents a
>>> connection to a service or executable that is running on one computer.
>>> Transferring that connection to another computer is impossible."
>>>
>>
>>While this is indeed a nice turn of phrase, in substance it's incorrect.
>>You can marshal a live COM object and unmarshal it on a different
>>machine.
> .
> .
> .
> ... but the *references* in that object are unlikely to be
> meaningful on the second machine (or, in many cases, on the
> original machine, if at a sufficiently later time).
In practice, you can marshal and unmarshal an object as complex
as Excel.Application which contains references to literally hundreds
of objects.
Roger
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
