In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Upole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >"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. . . . This surprises me; it's different from my experience. There's a lot I have to learn about COM and DCOM, though, so I thank you for the correction.
The larger point, which you aptly reinforced, is that "Python-URL!"'s aim is not so much to teach facts as to provoke thought. We're successful when conversations like this ensue. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
