From: "T. Onoma" <transami@...>
Date: 2003-11-20T15:14:03+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata    about attribute types)

Simon,

> Plus the fact that when you're passing data rather than object
> references (which is the case with any remote invocation), you need to
> do one of the following:
> (a) 
> expect exactly the same class at the other end,
> (b) 
> serialize the class (executable code) and send it along with the data,
> (c)
> serialize the object's data in such a way that *equivalent* types can be
> instantiated at the other end.
> 
> Option (c) is the usual approach. However this implies that you need to
> know the "type" of the data, so that an equivalent can be created at the
> receiving end.
> 
> Even when doing Ruby->Ruby remote invocations, I presume that type
> information is required. Any of the "distributed ruby" people here care
> to comment?

there is another way, the classes can be substantiated only on the remote end and all messages are routed to the remote object. the local "subscriber" only needs to know  basic types and mechanics of invocation. so no definite type system in needed. this is extremely network intensive though.

-t0