All three approaches you outlined are viable but web service is easiest to
>From what you described, it seems it would be a low-performance use for
Racket and only simple data structures will be passed back and forth on an
infrequent basis. Web service would be a good fit for that.
Out of the last two approaches, the COM approach seems to me to be the
better one. Although I have never used it, Racket provides MzCOM and .NET
comes with additional support for interacting with COM from within the .NET
environment. It would allow you to tightly integrate Racket into your
application, pass complex data back and forth and achieve higher
performance throughout, but likely it would be more work. I've used COM in
the past for C++ applications; in those projects it was always a lot of
work to configure and integrate COM.
I would try setting up a web service first and if it's not adequate for
whatever reason (performance, business requirements, etc) then I would try
the COM approach.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.