Originally posted by Amish Patel:
* public class FBNServer starts the registry on a particular port.
Peter den Haan | peterdenhaan.com | quantum computing specialist, Objectivity Ltd
Originally posted by Jochen van Waasen:
Is it acceptable to start the rmiregistry manually?
Jochen
[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: Jochen van Waasen ]
If tomorrow something changes in Data, and you can absorb this change in a wrapper class, that's great. That is the right moment to introduce the class. No earlier. Provided your design is clean, omitting it now will not at all prevent you from adding it in the future. All you'd have to change is the factory method that gives you your DataInterface object. But, chances are, it won't ever get that far.Originally posted by Amish Patel:
I know that unnecessary code should be avoided and there is no need for LocalData, but I think that by providing this I am abstracting my client from the real Data object. If tommorow something changes in Data, LocalData will hide this from the client. [...]
That smells of superstition. You've got this requirement of having a client-side object that uses the Data interface; make the best of it. It's just an API. If and when it becomes necessary to wrap it, you can.Also I do not like client accessing Data directly.
I sound like a broken record -- if for some reason that happens, great, go for it. Until then, YAGNI.And lets say for some reason they want to synchronize client access at the Local level, then LocalData is well position to do that.
But then again, I might not. My mission here is not to turn everyone's design into a clone of my own -- G-d forbid. But IMHO the SCJD assignment is one of your great learning opportunities, a point where you can really think a design through and grow tremendously as a developer in a short space of time. And ultimately the design you come up with is one you will have to be able to defend; if you can successfully defend it against a "sparring partner" writing convincing design documentation is going to be a lot easier. If you can't defend it, on the other hand, your design is likely to have weak spots.Please comment Peter. I know ultimately you will persuade me to remove LocalData. But please give me your honest opinion.
Peter den Haan | peterdenhaan.com | quantum computing specialist, Objectivity Ltd
Originally posted by Amish Patel:
* public class RemoteDataFactoryInterface extends Remote
Qusay
Provided your design is clean, omitting it now will not at all prevent you from adding it in the future
You've got this requirement of having a client-side object that uses the Data interface; make the best of it. It's just an API. If and when it becomes necessary to wrap it, you can.
I sound like a broken record -- if for some reason that happens, great, go for it. Until then, YAGN
My mission here is not to turn everyone's design into a clone of my own -- G-d forbid
Originally posted by Qusay Jaafar:
I think you want to say:
* public interface RemoteDataFactoryInterface extends Remote
Do you???
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy, because I'm easy come, easy go, little high, little low, little ad
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
|