On Thursday 09 August 2001 04:42 pm, you wrote:
> Ned Konz wrote:
> > Sure. One example would be in a system where you had proxy objects
> > representing, say, objects that were out in disk files. These would be
> > placekeepers (allowing existing objects to maintain their references) and
> > could load on demand. However, when I re-load an object that I had a
> > proxy to, I want all the other objects that pointed to the proxy to now
> > point to the real object.
>
> Ah. I see what you're getting at now.  I'm sure this is incredibly naive,
> but couldn't this be handled by having a proxy for each of your proxies?
> Ie, the second-level proxy never changes and that's what all the other
> objects have references to.  You then change the second-level proxy object
> to refer to the new object.

But then you make each one of these objects slower, because each method call 
causes two method calls. And it uses more memory, as well. And the proxies 
have to respond the same way to the existing reflection protocols to make 
them work with tools, etc.


-- 
Ned Konz
currently: Stanwood, WA
email:     ned / bike-nomad.com
homepage:  http://bike-nomad.com