FooProxy | 0 使用 Python3.7（Scored IP proxy pool , customise proxy data | Reactive Programming library

So I am trying to share access to a custom class object over a network by having a host machine serve it, and multiple clients connect to and update it. It seems that the standard multiprocessing library has managers and proxies for just this usage case.

I believe from reading the multiprocessing docs (and other posts here) that on the host side I need a custom manager derived from the multiprocessing BaseManager class then register my custom class with a custom proxy derived from the multiprocessing BaseProxy class. I believe on the client side I need to connect to the manager and interact with my custom class using a proxy.

The issue I am having is that attributes that change on the host version of my custom class cannot be seen on the clients and vice versa. It seems I have done something wrong with the implementation or misunderstood the docs/source. Can someone help provide a working example and explain the solution?

Here is my minimal example.

Run manager in one terminal with:

I'm looking for RealProxy replacement in .NET Core, and this issue forwards me to DispatchProxy.

It has simple API, but it's unclear, how to wrap existing object into proxy.
E.g., having this interface:

Is it possible to up-cast a shared pointer object reference in an initializer list?

I have two class hierarchies with matching derived classes. Let's say I have a Base class which is derived to a Foo and a Bar class. Then I have a separate hierarchy with a ProxyBase class and then (to match the other hierarchy) there's FooProxy and BarProxy.

The ProxyBase class stores a shared_ptr. When a ProxyFoo is created it requires a std::shared_ptr&, when a ProxyBar is created it requires a std::shared_ptr&.

There are two ways I can make this work:

• Don't use references to the std::shared_ptr<*> objects.
• Use std::shared_ptr& obj as input to the ProxyFoo and ProxyBar constructors. This requires a down-cast (which I want to avoid) in the constructor (since I want the Foo and Bar specific properties), plus that it makes the contract/API more allowing than it should be.

But I'm wondering if this can be done with references.

I think I know what the problem is: When I remove the references it works, and I think that's because "casting" a shared_ptr is technically not allowed; it can only be "casted" by creating a new shared_ptr object of a derived/base type. When using references one tries to actually cast one shared_ptr object to another which isn't allowed. Is this correct?

Originally I thought this was one of those cases where std::static_pointer_cast would help, but if my hypothesis is correct then that won't help either.

Self-contained example:

I am using Jackson to deserialize JSON of this form:

I have an abstract class:

Example:

I am trying to make converting between a custom class and OpenCV easier.

Converting constructors allow us to declare a class without the explicit keyword and construct from an alternate data type.

For example, we could declare two classes:

I'm in the process of inheriting a legacy codebase where nobody really ever introduced a sane way of handling different environments beyond "copy files around into your source tree." I'm trying to reintroduce some sanity without breaking everything.

The web.xml of the front-end webapp (using Spring MVC 3.x on Tomcat 6.x) contains a bunch of servlets that proxy to a different URL:

I'm struggling to use Python Multiprocessing Manager objects... I have this kind of structure going on: