Take the 2-minute tour ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What exactly is C# version of Java RMI?

I want to invoke the methods of client from the server, ping the client from server etc.

How the server and client communication is done with c#?

share|improve this question
    
Have a look at WCF, that's how client-server communication is often done in .Net. –  svick Oct 6 '12 at 19:11
    
Yes It more Efficent , Becuse instead the normal socket and client ,server application in rmi you get many usefull features to build your application .For example . RMI provides multithread server --the server is multithread by deafult so u don't need to add threading code. RMI support Object Serilization or Object Registery using a memory Address Just by Refernce and By Value Transfer of objects under the socket.But, I know only the JAVA RMI. –  danielad Jun 13 '13 at 13:06
    
This question isn't about efficiency, it's asking for an identification of equivalent technology. –  GlenH7 Jun 13 '13 at 13:35
    
@GlenH7 lol ,what is an efficiency then compared to C# and JAVA –  danielad Jun 13 '13 at 13:36
    
You are missing the point of the question. It is not a C# vs. Java question. It is asking for "I do XYZ in Java. How do I do that in C#?" –  GlenH7 Jun 13 '13 at 13:37
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

As svick said in his comment Windows Communication Foundation would be the technology in question.

Introduced in .NET 3.0, its goal was to pull together all manner of client-server communications, replacing various disparate methods (webservices, remoting, message queueing, etc.) with a single unified framework.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.