c# networking windows form

[Answering a follow-up question in the comments to Solution 3]

The question was about simulation of an event like a click event.

Technically, a event can be invoked only in a class where the event is declared. It is not possible to do anywhere else, not even it the derived class. This is a one of the limitations of event instances, in contrast to "regular" delegate instances, an important fool-proof feature of events.

Please see my recent answer on this topic:
Since we have multicast delegates, why do we need events?[^].

Take for example the class System.Windows.Forms.Control. It has the method InvokeOnClick which actually invokes the Click event, please see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.invokeonclick.aspx[^].

This way, one can directly invoke the event in the base class, but only because of this method which was exposed to the derived classes (and only for them, through the protected access modifier) to provide some back door to simulation of the click. To use it, one should create a derived class from any of the control classes.

Conceptually, this is possible but redundant. In real development, you don't need an event itself, not an actual click. You really need to call some method normally called when an event is invoked. So, this is exactly what you could do (instead of awkward sub-classing and using System.Windows.Forms.Control.InvokeOnClick:

void ProcessMyButtonClick() { /* you don't need any parameters ... */ }
//...

myButton.Click += (sender, eventArgs) => {
   ProcessMyButtonClick();
   // note that you don't need event handler parameters;
   // in other cases, you need only one of them or both...
}

//...

// and you can have the exact same effect if you call it elsewhere:
ProcessMyButtonClick(); //that's all; this is a regular method, call it a will!

The code shown above also shows the benefits of anonymous event handler, in the lambda form, which also allowed for type inference (note that the types of parameters are not specified, but compiler takes them from the delegate type of the event instance Click, this is the delegate System.EventHandler<System.EventArgs>).

For C# v.2, when neither lambda nor type inference were introduced, the syntax of adding an event handler would be a bit longer, but still using anonymous event handler:

myButton.Click += (object sender, System.EventArgs eventArgs) {
   ProcessMyButtonClick();
   // note that you don't need event handler parameters;
   // in other cases, you need only one of them or both...
}

I'm sure that .NET prior v.2.0 and C# prior to v.2 should not be ever considered.

Now, the original question was about invocation of event between different host linked via network. After the above explanations, is should be clear that effectively the problem is reduced to calling the same method like ProcessMyButtonClick in response to some command sent via network.

I would note, I don't see a whole lot of sense in it. The network communication should be implemented in a separate communication layer and isolated from the UI. It could be semantic or very abstract, not exchanging some logical data and commands. You need loose coupling, as opposed to strong coupling; please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_coupling[^].

I suggest you learn and analyze applicability of the following architectural patterns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_pattern_(computer_science)[^]):

MVVM — Model View View Model,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_View_ViewModel[^],

MVC — Model-View-Controller,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller[^]),

MVA — Model-View-Adapter,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model–view–adapter[^],

MVP — Model-View-Presenter,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-presenter[^].

Pay attention for the motivation of those architectures. If you understand it, you would be able to create better design ideas.

Good luck,

—SA

Please see my past answer for some important ideas:
Multple clients from same port Number[^].

[EDIT]

Please see my reply in response to the follow-up discussion:

Solution 4

—SA