commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juozas Baliuka <bali...@mwm.lt>
Subject Re: ARMI mobilisation?
Date Sat, 05 Jan 2002 12:19:49 GMT
Hi,
I see you still want to implement alternative RMI . I can't understad this.

1. RemoteException.  "}catch(ARMIRuntimeException are){"  is it better ? 
You handle fatal exeptions, don't you ?
Generate wrappers for remote interfaces, and you will not have any problems 
with remote exception handling.
2. Remote interface. RMI must know how to marshal objects, by value or by 
reference. Remote interface tells this.
Your ARMI knows this, don't it ? Have you a better solution ?
3. You want to have same remote and local interfaces. Use factory design 
pattern and generated wrappers  if your code does not depend on marshaling.
4. You want to use alternative transport. Is it  JAVA RMI problem ? Use 
java.rmi.server.RMIServerSocketFactory and
java.rmi.server.RMIClientSocketFactory, it is possible implement RMI over 
ARMI :).
5. Most  of distributed applications hosted by EJB servers, Is ARMI useful 
for j2ee application ?


I see no ARMI advantages. Use RMI, well known design patterns and you will 
have portable and good code.
  I thing it can be useful project if you use standard JAVA RMI, implement 
code generators for wrappers, IDE plugins,  alternative
transports, default remote exception handlers, write documentation for RMI 
design patterns.




At 18:41 2002-01-03 +0000, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Any thoughts for ARMI (though it needs a rename as "Async RMI" already 
>used). Is commons the place for it? Yes/No?
>
>Regards,
>
>- Paul H
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message