Shawn Wildermuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I searched through the archives and found one discussion
> about this, but it referred to a solution that wasn't posted
> anymore. Is remoting my only solution to a Per Machine Singleton?
Yes. =)
The beauty of it is you can configure the app
rmuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Per Machine Singleton...
I mean one (and only one) instance of an object for each client and
process. I had implemented it as an all static class (in-proc
singleton), but now I realize
destroyed after some minutes.
-Ingo
Author of "Advanced .NET Remoting"
http://www.dotnetremoting.cc
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Wildermuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Per Machine Singleton...
dotnet discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Behalf Of franklin gray
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Per Machine Singleton...
>
>
> what do you mean by Per machine? As in having an object on
> the server for each clien
: [DOTNET] Per Machine Singleton...
I searched through the archives and found one discussion about this, but
it referred to a solution that wasn't posted anymore. Is remoting my
only solution to a Per Machine Singleton?
Thanks,
Shawn Wildermuth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://adoguy.com
I searched through the archives and found one discussion about this, but
it referred to a solution that wasn't posted anymore. Is remoting my
only solution to a Per Machine Singleton?
Thanks,
Shawn Wildermuth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://adoguy.com
http://shawnwildermuth.com
"...for the programmer
