"Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dAWdnbsLO7oQheGiU-KYuQ@fireflyuk.net...
> Hi,
>
> I'm developing a distributed App using .net remoting and have been having
a
> problem when trying to pass a Serializable MBV object after it has been
> bound to controls on a windows form.
>
> Example:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> <Serializable> Public Class Item
>
> '*************************************************
> ' Name: Name of the item
> '*************************************************
> Private mName As String = ""
> Public Event NameChanged As EventHandler
> Public Property Name() As String
> Get
> Return mName
> End Get
> Set(ByVal Value As String)
> mName = Value
> RaiseEvent NameChanged(Me, New EventArgs())
> End Set
> End Property
>
> End Class
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The above code snippet defines a simple MarshalByValue class that has a
> "Name" Property. The property has all the extra stuff needed for
databinding
> (Event etc. - Please let me know if this is wrong)
>
> If I create an instance of this class and pass it across to a remoting
> function call, everything works fine... the object reaches the other side
> without a problem.
>
> However, If I bind the "Name" property to a textbox on a windows form with
> the following code:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> txtName.DataBindings.Add("Text", mItem, "Name")
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The databinding works, but when I call the remoting function call as
before,
> the following exception is raised:
>
> "The type System.Windows.Forms.BindToObject in Assembly
> System.Windows.Forms, Version=1.0.3300.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 is not marked as serializable."
>
> I could understand if "BindToObject" was a member of my "Item" class, but
it
> isn't, so why is the Remoting Framework attempting to serialize it?
>
> Please help me with this. If you have the time, feel free to send me in
the
> right direction as far as databinding goes (I'm only going of an example I
> found somewhere before).
>
> Thanks in advance of any help,
>
> Trev.
>
>
>
>

> I'm not sure how to avoid excluding the event from serialization other
than
> implementing the ISerializable interface.

"Joe White" <ip255@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uKiF8DUiDHA.1692@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I'm not sure how to avoid excluding the event from serialization other
> than
> > implementing the ISerializable interface.
>
> Does it work to tag the event with a [NonSerialized] attribute?
>
>

> [field: NonSerialized]
> public event EventHandler NameChanged;

> You can mark an event as not serialized in C#. Since you're using VB.NET,
> you could have one class in another project (a C# class library) that
> contains your events, and then inherit your business class from it.

"Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230JfuNViDHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> You can mark an event as not serialized in C#. Since you're using VB.NET,
> you could have one class in another project (a C# class library) that
> contains your events, and then inherit your business class from it.
>
> [Serializable()]
> public abstract class MyBaseClass
> {
> [field: NonSerialized]
> public event EventHandler NameChanged;
>
> protected virtual void OnNameChanged() {
> if (NameChanged != null) {
> NameChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty);
> }
> }
> }
>
>

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:%232vxQHRiDHA.3104@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Codemonkey,
> I believe the framework is trying to serialize the event handlers attached
> to NameChanged. One of the handlers its attached to a class that is not
> serializable. At least that is what was handing in one of my projects.
>
> I'm not sure how to avoid excluding the event from serialization other
than
> implementing the ISerializable interface.
>
> The following articles provide a wealth of information on serialization:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/04/net/
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/net/
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/09/net/
>
> Hope this helps
> Jay
>
>
> "Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dAWdnbsLO7oQheGiU-KYuQ@fireflyuk.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm developing a distributed App using .net remoting and have been
having
> a
> > problem when trying to pass a Serializable MBV object after it has been
> > bound to controls on a windows form.
> >
> > Example:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > <Serializable> Public Class Item
> >
> > '*************************************************
> > ' Name: Name of the item
> > '*************************************************
> > Private mName As String = ""
> > Public Event NameChanged As EventHandler
> > Public Property Name() As String
> > Get
> > Return mName
> > End Get
> > Set(ByVal Value As String)
> > mName = Value
> > RaiseEvent NameChanged(Me, New EventArgs())
> > End Set
> > End Property
> >
> > End Class
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > The above code snippet defines a simple MarshalByValue class that has a
> > "Name" Property. The property has all the extra stuff needed for
> databinding
> > (Event etc. - Please let me know if this is wrong)
> >
> > If I create an instance of this class and pass it across to a remoting
> > function call, everything works fine... the object reaches the other
side
> > without a problem.
> >
> > However, If I bind the "Name" property to a textbox on a windows form
with
> > the following code:
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > txtName.DataBindings.Add("Text", mItem, "Name")
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > The databinding works, but when I call the remoting function call as
> before,
> > the following exception is raised:
> >
> > "The type System.Windows.Forms.BindToObject in Assembly
> > System.Windows.Forms, Version=1.0.3300.0, Culture=neutral,
> > PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 is not marked as serializable."
> >
> > I could understand if "BindToObject" was a member of my "Item" class,
but
> it
> > isn't, so why is the Remoting Framework attempting to serialize it?
> >
> > Please help me with this. If you have the time, feel free to send me in
> the
> > right direction as far as databinding goes (I'm only going of an example
I
> > found somewhere before).
> >
> > Thanks in advance of any help,
> >
> > Trev.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Joe White" <ip255@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uKiF8DUiDHA.1692@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I'm not sure how to avoid excluding the event from serialization other
> than
> > implementing the ISerializable interface.
>
> Does it work to tag the event with a [NonSerialized] attribute?
>
>

"Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%230JfuNViDHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> You can mark an event as not serialized in C#. Since you're using VB.NET,
> you could have one class in another project (a C# class library) that
> contains your events, and then inherit your business class from it.
>
> [Serializable()]
> public abstract class MyBaseClass
> {
> [field: NonSerialized]
> public event EventHandler NameChanged;
>
> protected virtual void OnNameChanged() {
> if (NameChanged != null) {
> NameChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty);
> }
> }
> }
>
>

> Pity about the difference between the VB <NonSerialized> attribute and the
> C# one.

"Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qfmcnSMTUd1YOOCiXTWJlg@fireflyuk.net...
> Thanks for the tip about VS 2003.
>
> > It seems a shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue.
>
> Yeah - I'm sure it isn't the only thing that I've had to code around. ;-)
>
> I'll eventually go down the ISerialize way of doing things as I've
> discovered that it happens with all event handlers, not just the
databinding
> variety. Basically if objectA attaches a handler to objectB's event, then
> when objectB is serialized, objectA is serialized along with it. Guess
this
> must be by design :-S
>
> Pity about the difference between the VB <NonSerialized> attribute and the
> C# one.
>
> Cheers again,
>
> Trev.
>
> "Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ushHQhaiDHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The same problem exists in the 2003 version, unfortunately. It seems a
> > shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue. Common
> Refrain:
> > Hopefully Microsoft will get around to doing something about it in the
> next
> > version of VS.NET.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
>
>

> It seems a shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue.

"Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ushHQhaiDHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The same problem exists in the 2003 version, unfortunately. It seems a
> shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue. Common
Refrain:
> Hopefully Microsoft will get around to doing something about it in the
next
> version of VS.NET.
>
> Karen
>
>

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uE79MzViDHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Karen,
> > [field: NonSerialized]
> > public event EventHandler NameChanged;
> Drats! :-) VB.NET only supports Assembly & Module modifiers on attributes
>
> <Assembly: NonSerialized>
> or
> <Module: NonSerialized>
>
> The Field modifier is not supported.
>
> Of course NonSerialized in not appropriate for either. I believe the
Module
> attribute modifier is for .NET IL Modules, not VB.NET Module types.
>
> > You can mark an event as not serialized in C#. Since you're using
VB.NET,
> > you could have one class in another project (a C# class library) that
> > contains your events, and then inherit your business class from it.
> Its about as easy to implement ISerializable and serialize each field
> individually. I'm not sure how the OP feels about either solution.
>
> Thanks for the tip on the 'field' modifier for the attributes in C#.
Safely
> stored that nugget of knowledge for later.
>
> Jay
>
> "Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%230JfuNViDHA.4024@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > You can mark an event as not serialized in C#. Since you're using
VB.NET,
> > you could have one class in another project (a C# class library) that
> > contains your events, and then inherit your business class from it.
> >
> > [Serializable()]
> > public abstract class MyBaseClass
> > {
> > [field: NonSerialized]
> > public event EventHandler NameChanged;
> >
> > protected virtual void OnNameChanged() {
> > if (NameChanged != null) {
> > NameChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
>
>

"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eM66R%23diDHA.3484@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Trev,
> > Pity about the difference between the VB <NonSerialized> attribute and
the
> > C# one.
> I submitted something to Microsoft about this, we can hope that Whidbey
> (VS.NET 2004) offers a change in this area.
>
> Jay
>
> "Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qfmcnSMTUd1YOOCiXTWJlg@fireflyuk.net...
> > Thanks for the tip about VS 2003.
> >
> > > It seems a shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue.
> >
> > Yeah - I'm sure it isn't the only thing that I've had to code around.
;-)
> >
> > I'll eventually go down the ISerialize way of doing things as I've
> > discovered that it happens with all event handlers, not just the
> databinding
> > variety. Basically if objectA attaches a handler to objectB's event,
then
> > when objectB is serialized, objectA is serialized along with it. Guess
> this
> > must be by design :-S
> >
> > Pity about the difference between the VB <NonSerialized> attribute and
the
> > C# one.
> >
> > Cheers again,
> >
> > Trev.
> >
> > "Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ushHQhaiDHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The same problem exists in the 2003 version, unfortunately. It seems
a
> > > shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue. Common
> > Refrain:
> > > Hopefully Microsoft will get around to doing something about it in the
> > next
> > > version of VS.NET.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Joe Fallon" <jfallon1@nospamtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u1aGnjjiDHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> MS is aware of the issue.
> Rocky Lhotka informed them of it.
> --
> Joe Fallon
>
>
>
>
> "Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow@email.msn.com> wrote in
message
> news:eM66R%23diDHA.3484@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Trev,
> > > Pity about the difference between the VB <NonSerialized> attribute and
> the
> > > C# one.
> > I submitted something to Microsoft about this, we can hope that Whidbey
> > (VS.NET 2004) offers a change in this area.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > "Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:qfmcnSMTUd1YOOCiXTWJlg@fireflyuk.net...
> > > Thanks for the tip about VS 2003.
> > >
> > > > It seems a shame to write a bunch more code to work around this
issue.
> > >
> > > Yeah - I'm sure it isn't the only thing that I've had to code around.
> ;-)
> > >
> > > I'll eventually go down the ISerialize way of doing things as I've
> > > discovered that it happens with all event handlers, not just the
> > databinding
> > > variety. Basically if objectA attaches a handler to objectB's event,
> then
> > > when objectB is serialized, objectA is serialized along with it. Guess
> > this
> > > must be by design :-S
> > >
> > > Pity about the difference between the VB <NonSerialized> attribute and
> the
> > > C# one.
> > >
> > > Cheers again,
> > >
> > > Trev.
> > >
> > > "Karen Martinez" <kariepie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ushHQhaiDHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > The same problem exists in the 2003 version, unfortunately. It
seems
> a
> > > > shame to write a bunch more code to work around this issue. Common
> > > Refrain:
> > > > Hopefully Microsoft will get around to doing something about it in
the
> > > next
> > > > version of VS.NET.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

"Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dAWdnbsLO7oQheGiU-KYuQ@fireflyuk.net...
> Hi,
>
> I'm developing a distributed App using .net remoting and have been having
a
> problem when trying to pass a Serializable MBV object after it has been
> bound to controls on a windows form.
>
> Example:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> <Serializable> Public Class Item
>
> '*************************************************
> ' Name: Name of the item
> '*************************************************
> Private mName As String = ""
> Public Event NameChanged As EventHandler
> Public Property Name() As String
> Get
> Return mName
> End Get
> Set(ByVal Value As String)
> mName = Value
> RaiseEvent NameChanged(Me, New EventArgs())
> End Set
> End Property
>
> End Class
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The above code snippet defines a simple MarshalByValue class that has a
> "Name" Property. The property has all the extra stuff needed for
databinding
> (Event etc. - Please let me know if this is wrong)
>
> If I create an instance of this class and pass it across to a remoting
> function call, everything works fine... the object reaches the other side
> without a problem.
>
> However, If I bind the "Name" property to a textbox on a windows form with
> the following code:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> txtName.DataBindings.Add("Text", mItem, "Name")
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The databinding works, but when I call the remoting function call as
before,
> the following exception is raised:
>
> "The type System.Windows.Forms.BindToObject in Assembly
> System.Windows.Forms, Version=1.0.3300.0, Culture=neutral,
> PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 is not marked as serializable."
>
> I could understand if "BindToObject" was a member of my "Item" class, but
it
> isn't, so why is the Remoting Framework attempting to serialize it?
>
> Please help me with this. If you have the time, feel free to send me in
the
> right direction as far as databinding goes (I'm only going of an example I
> found somewhere before).
>
> Thanks in advance of any help,
>
> Trev.
>
>
>
>

"Gery D. Dorazio" <gdorazio@enque.net> wrote in message
news:OaioDLOjDHA.220@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi folks,
>
> This problem looks very much like a related situation in what appears to
be
> a loss of state in the server object with many of the remoting
> samples...ones that instantiate a Singleton object forever on the server
and
> then have multiple clients access it... In this problem, losing the
> reference to the event handler appears to be the same thing. I have also
> lost the same type of reference to event handlers.
>
> In a generalized case, if you start a server and leave it running and then
> start a client, let it do its thing and then start another client, it
> appears to have reinitialized the server instances objects - except the
> serializable ones like strings. (If anyone is interested I have a project
I
> can email to you to demonstrate.)
>
> However, I am beginning to think that this situation is by design and that
> there really isn't a problem here. In the MS documentation it states that
> when designing remotable classes the designer must insure that the class
> properly handles security since remotable objects cross process boundries
> and/or app domains. Although the framework handles security for local
apps,
> it doesn't automatically extend to remotable types because the security
> context can be outside the local machines control. It wouldn't necessarily
> throw a security exception because the framework doesn't know your
> intentions about the use of the fields or references in your class. This
> idea is hinted at because between framework 1.0 and 1.1 the security
> restrictions were tightened and now you have to add the
> typeFilterLevel="Full" attribute to the formatter. Otherwise, some apps
> developed in 1.0 will give a security exception in 1.1.
>
> I do not know if this is the problem here and this may be an incorrect
> rabbit trail. But the thought here is that when a second instance of a
> client is instantiated, a second singleton object is also instantiated
> because the first instance is/was used for the first client and the
> boundries are different. I am currently trying to figure out how to test
> this theory by using the ObjRef object returned by the
> RemotingServices.Marshall() call that I use on the server after creating
the
> first instance of the singleton object. But I am not there yet...
>
> Any comments good or bad are very welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Gery
>
>
> --
> Gery D. Dorazio
> Development Engineer
>
> EnQue Corporation
> 1334 Queens Road
> Charlotte, NC 28207
> (704) 377-3327
> www.enque.net
> "Codemonkey" <hunter_trev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dAWdnbsLO7oQheGiU-KYuQ@fireflyuk.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm developing a distributed App using .net remoting and have been
having
> a
> > problem when trying to pass a Serializable MBV object after it has been
> > bound to controls on a windows form.
> >
> > Example:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > <Serializable> Public Class Item
> >
> > '*************************************************
> > ' Name: Name of the item
> > '*************************************************
> > Private mName As String = ""
> > Public Event NameChanged As EventHandler
> > Public Property Name() As String
> > Get
> > Return mName
> > End Get
> > Set(ByVal Value As String)
> > mName = Value
> > RaiseEvent NameChanged(Me, New EventArgs())
> > End Set
> > End Property
> >
> > End Class
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > The above code snippet defines a simple MarshalByValue class that has a
> > "Name" Property. The property has all the extra stuff needed for
> databinding
> > (Event etc. - Please let me know if this is wrong)
> >
> > If I create an instance of this class and pass it across to a remoting
> > function call, everything works fine... the object reaches the other
side
> > without a problem.
> >
> > However, If I bind the "Name" property to a textbox on a windows form
with
> > the following code:
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > txtName.DataBindings.Add("Text", mItem, "Name")
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > The databinding works, but when I call the remoting function call as
> before,
> > the following exception is raised:
> >
> > "The type System.Windows.Forms.BindToObject in Assembly
> > System.Windows.Forms, Version=1.0.3300.0, Culture=neutral,
> > PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089 is not marked as serializable."
> >
> > I could understand if "BindToObject" was a member of my "Item" class,
but
> it
> > isn't, so why is the Remoting Framework attempting to serialize it?
> >
> > Please help me with this. If you have the time, feel free to send me in
> the
> > right direction as far as databinding goes (I'm only going of an example
I
> > found somewhere before).
> >
> > Thanks in advance of any help,
> >
> > Trev.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>