Use 'new' rather than Activator.CreateInstance for remote objects activation?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

hazz - 23 Jun 2004 21:06 GMT

I just read in a coding standard to "Avoid using Activator.GetObject() and
Activator.CreateInstance() for remote objects activation. Use new instead."

Since I have just been instructed to use Activator.CreateInstance() rather
than 'new' on a project, I would like to know the consequences of doing so.

Thanks,
-Greg

Reply to this Message

Sunny - 23 Jun 2004 21:17 GMT

Hi,
can you provide a link?

Thanks

> I just read in a coding standard to "Avoid using Activator.GetObject() and
> Activator.CreateInstance() for remote objects activation. Use new instead."
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Thanks,
> -Greg

Reply to this Message

Allen Anderson - 24 Jun 2004 01:29 GMT

I would have to strongly disagree with that. Using GetObject and
CreateInstance mean you aren't having to ship some form of the source
dll but rather just a proxy. I agree with Sunny in that, who would
say something like that? You have a link?

Allen Anderson
http://www.glacialcomponents.com
mailto: allen@put my website url here.com

>I just read in a coding standard to "Avoid using Activator.GetObject() and
>Activator.CreateInstance() for remote objects activation. Use new instead."
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Thanks,
>-Greg

Reply to this Message

Richard Bell - 24 Jun 2004 11:05 GMT

> I would have to strongly disagree with that. Using GetObject and
> CreateInstance mean you aren't having to ship some form of the source
> dll but rather just a proxy. I agree with Sunny in that, who would
> say something like that? You have a link?

Just out of curiosity, why do you have to distribute a 'source' (or do you
mean implementation?) dll?

Reply to this Message

Sunny - 24 Jun 2004 15:27 GMT

Hi Richard,
you know what he means ;-)

I know that you prefer soapsuds-ed metainfo, so the you can use "new",
but still Allen's statement is valid, in terms, that if you ship the
implementation, it's not too hard to get the source :)

Sunny

> > I would have to strongly disagree with that. Using GetObject and
> > CreateInstance mean you aren't having to ship some form of the source
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Just out of curiosity, why do you have to distribute a 'source' (or do you
> mean implementation?) dll?

Reply to this Message

Allen Anderson - 24 Jun 2004 16:09 GMT

I meant implementation of course.

>> I would have to strongly disagree with that. Using GetObject and
>> CreateInstance mean you aren't having to ship some form of the source
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Just out of curiosity, why do you have to distribute a 'source' (or do you
>mean implementation?) dll?

Reply to this Message

Richard Bell - 24 Jun 2004 16:50 GMT

But the point is, you do not /*have*/ to distribute 'implementation'
assemblies in either case. Therefore it is not a reason for choosing one
method of instantiating objects over another.

Reply to this Message

Use 'new' rather than Activator.CreateInstance for remote objects activation?

Free Magazines