«

These are a set of questions, I have been trying to get answers to,
since yesterday. It will be very helpful even if you could answer them
partially.


1. In the case of ordinary ( JRMP ) RMI, every object that is passed
from the remote side to the client side, will have to go through
serialization

2. If the remote side returns a *non Remote* object that is actually
the subclass of the declared object, and if the class definition for
this subclass does not exist in the client, it will be sent from the
server side over the wire.

3. There is no mechanism in RMI to do a version control. ( Like
different versions of the same interface )

4. If the Remote interface is later changed to *add one more method*,
and if the server is recompiled to implement this method along with
all the old ones, the client will continue to work for all the methods
it was written for originally.

5. As described in the case 4. above, if the server is rewritten to
add one more method and if a reference to one such object is returned
from the server ( as a result of another method invocation ), the
client will get a stub object with only the old methods available. (
Since its class definition for the object only contains the original
methods )

6. In the case of RMI-IIOP, object serialization is not used at all.
Instead it uses CORBA's CDR encoding.

7. among JRMP & IIOP, which one is faster and efficient ( efficient in
terms of the number of bytes for the call overhead )

8. What is the relevance of RMI-IIOP. Does it exist only to bridge
with CORBA/other languages clients. Or does it serve any special
purpose in an EJB container's context. ( Is it only coincidental that
I started to hear more about RMI-IIOP about the time EJBs started to
become popular.


Thanks in advance
--sony

"Sony Antony" wrote:

> These are a set of questions,

No, you provided a set of statements. And these statements look very
much like homework.

HH

Harald Hein wrote:

> "Sony Antony" wrote:
>
>> These are a set of questions,
>
> No, you provided a set of statements. And these statements look very
> much like homework.

Must be a very good university to ask such advanced questions like CDR
encoding and interface version control.

--sony

On 1 Jul 2003 12:55:35 -0700, (Sony Antony)
wrote or quoted :

>What is the relevance of RMI-IIOP

I think it was a marketing idea to make RMI sound more Corba
compatible than it really is.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:45:41 GMT, Roedy Green <> wrote:

> On 1 Jul 2003 12:55:35 -0700, (Sony Antony)
> wrote or quoted :
>
>> What is the relevance of RMI-IIOP
>
> I think it was a marketing idea to make RMI sound more Corba
> compatible than it really is.

I remember reading a quote about it:

"RMI over IIOP combines the disadvantages of RMI with the disadvantages of
CORBA."

--
Daniel Dyer
Empathy Software (http://www.empathysoftware.com)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Roedy Green" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 1 Jul 2003 12:55:35 -0700, (Sony Antony)
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >What is the relevance of RMI-IIOP
>
> I think it was a marketing idea to make RMI sound more Corba
> compatible than it really is.


Thanks:
With RMI-IIOP is it possible to write an EJB bean that simultaneously act as
an EJB and a CORBA ( server ) object at the same time. Are there any
containers that provide this functionality. I heard Iona's Orbix is also
'J2EE compliant'. Is this what they mean - One server acting as both EJB
container and a corba server.

--sony