Neil Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cameron Laird: > > > ... 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). > > The marshaling of the object is responsible for persisting any > contained references in a format that can be revivified on the second > machine. Sometimes these are references to 'short lived' objects in the > original process, in which case they should have been addrefed which > will also lock the process alive. Other times they may be monikers to > stable objects which can be reloaded.
Excellent brief summary. If one COM object in ten implemented marshaling correctly, I might still be a "Windows guru" instead of having run away screaming years ago (which played out all right careerwise, actually:-). Everybody needs to read Don Box's "Essential COM", btw; if one author of COM code in ten had read and understood it, etc, etc. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
