These two statements (avoiding public properties only, no interfaces,) are not correct
Perhaps you are refereeing to the old product FastSerializer

The new product Serialization Studio does not have such limitations.

You can use private members, it is up to you. But if you want these members to serialize 50 times faster than binary formatter, you have to declare them public.

No limitations on the interfaces either.

public interface MyInter

{

        int MyInt { get;set;}

}

public class Class2 : MyInter

{

   private string PrivString;

   private int _int2;

   public int MyInt

   {

            get

            {

                return _int2;

            }

            set

            {

                _int2 = value;

            }

   }

}

The class above can be perfectly serialized by the Serialization Studio.

We are looking at the Compact Framework remoting issue for one of our our 4.x releases (based on .NET 3.5 and the LINQ to Entities stack) in mid 2008 and were thinking of using WCF for Compact Framework.  We may also look at DotNetRemoting at that same time.

You may be interested in knowing that we already do perform custom serialization in our 3.x product, for performance reasons.  We have looked at the DotNetRemoting fast serialization product, and our initial analysis was that it has too many requirements that we cannot easily meet. ( avoiding public properties only, no interfaces, etc)

My company uses the Pocket PC extensively for bar code scanning.  We are about to write a line of programs for the Pocket PC.  How can I make use of DevForce for PocketPC development.  Would it be worth it?  Thanks.