Hi. I'm assuming your Listener class is derived from MarshalByRefOject?
Yes, once the listener is up and running, you should be able to see it
monitoring the port via 'netstate -a'. How are you registering the
channel and class, programatically or with a config file?
It may not be necessary to go through the trouble of spawning threads.
Often, applying the
Synchronization(SynchronizationAttribute.REQUIRES_NEW, False) attribute
to the class is sufficient to prevent collisions. Obviously, this
depends on your application.
I'd start off by making a simple windows application that registers the
channel and listening classes. It's easier to debug. The meat of your
application is the class library added as a second project within the
solution. Later, you can port the class library to a service solution.
If you can get your hands on a copy, 'Programming .Net Components' by
Juval Lowy (O'Reilly Press) is a great reference. Unfortunately, it's
out of print so you may have to content yourself with the sample code
and errata found at
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/pnetcomp/ [quoted text, click to view] Scott Townsend wrote:
> I've written a Windows Service, Listens for Data via TCP, Each listener
> is spawned in a new Thread creating a new Listener Object.
>
> I have the Interface for the Remoting Server side on the Listener Class
> Object (separate Project that Generates a DLL)
>
> The Service Works and I'm running my code form the Listener DLL just
> fine. Though when I try to Access my Remoting Interface (HTTP or TCP)
> the Client says the connection was refused, like the server side was
> never Listening.
>
> Once I have the Server side Interface dialed in, shou;d I not be able to
> see it listening on the port I defined in a 'netstat -a' command?
>
> I can see my other TCP Port I'm Listening on, but that is using the
> TCPClient Object.
>
> I'd rather not have the Remoting Interface to the Listener Object
> defined at the Windows Service level as I use the Listener Object in
> other Apps that I'd also like to remote into.
>
> Thanks,