发信人: crazyjava()
整理人: majorsun(2000-02-17 19:22:33), 站内信件
|
DCOM
A final alternative approach to remote computing is
Microsoft's DCOM. You may have heard of ActiveX components
even if you've not heard of DCOM; an ActiveX component is
simply another word for a DCOM object.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using DCOM
technology? Like RMI, DCOM is a closed standard. Unlike RMI,
however, DCOM is only supported on Microsoft Windows System.
DCOM also has its share of warts. For one thing it is hard
to configure. My teachers, Orfali and Harkey, describe DCOM
as "the configuration from hell."
As another example, DCOM does not support garbage collection.
It is the responsibility of a client to notify a server when
a object is no longer needed. This arangement may be
satisfactory within the context of a single computer, but it
is entirely unsatisfactory within the context of remote
objects, where network connections come and go. A disconnected
client can saddle a server with a redundant object, one that
will not disappear until the server is restarted, continuing
to hold resources (such as memory) in the meantime. An
overabundance of such objects would seriously compromise
server performance.
Are there any situations where DCOM might be the distributed
architecture of choice? Yes. If you're only interested in
using Microsoft Windows-based clients and servers and you
want the tightest possible integration between your
applications and the Windows API, then DCOM may be exactly
your ticket. However, for those who embrace the Java vision
of open and portable computing, DCOM is simply not an option.
/Crazyjava
--
孤身走我路...
其实，路，两个人一起走比一个人要好。
email: [email protected]
※ 修改:．crazyjava 于 Jul 30 17:14:23 修改本文．[FROM: 139.87.93.173]
※ 来源:．月光软件站 http://www.moon-soft.com．[FROM: 139.87.93.173]
|
|