Mr. C Lamont Gilbert

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Oct 05, 2001
Mr. likes ...
Eclipse IDE Hibernate Ubuntu
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
0
In last 30 days
0
Total given
0
Likes
Total received
1
Received in last 30 days
0
Total given
1
Given in last 30 days
0
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Mr. C Lamont Gilbert

Nice summary. Only disagree with the RMI requiring the same java version on both ends part. I went to 1.5 on the server because it offered nice enhancements over 1.4. The client however stayed 1.4. I'm not needing pregenerated stubs and skeletons though.
5 years ago
I haven't said that it isn't obsolete. I've only asked why. Perhaps the answer is as simple as people just didn't get it or wanted something different. I can't change that. But I'm having trouble with the idea that message passing is superior. Could be, but I don't see any reason why. I don't mind learning a new technology. If there is something superior I'd like to try it out. But I certainly would not do that just because the guy sitting next to me did it. Kinda of a weak reason for a technical person to make a choice.
5 years ago

Pat Farrell wrote:

Jayesh A Lalwani wrote:Whoa! Pat. When did you last read about RMI?



Long ago, last century. Its been obsolete at least that long.


This is clearly your very strong opinion. I don't know what the industry is doing so I can't argue with you. Still, I have not been given any reason why RMI would be obsolete. Certainly not replaced by something like message passing.
5 years ago

Pat Farrell wrote:Oh, its easy to make messages handle different versions.

The problem with RMI is that the objects must be identical. They are compiled with the 'rmic' into stubs.

With a message, all you have to do is pass a version number, say as the first field, and then write your code to read the version number and dispatch to the right code. The cool thing about this is that once you have the version number 1 code, you can ignore changes until you really need version 2. And you can be sure that you will have a version 2.



So you changed the version number sent by the server. Then you also changed the client to evaluate the version number? You changed it on both ends? How is that different? Not to mention you can always add more objects. Say, a version "2" of a particular object. Its all the same to me.
5 years ago
I haven't offered any strong opinions. Just one anecdote that working with objects has been easier for me than with messages. Mostly I have been asking why because I can't understand your position.

I think it holds for any protocol that if you change it, both ends will require knowledge of that. I don't see how a message structure can deal with this more easily than an object structure.
5 years ago
So then you just want your client to run in a browser and comminicate with your server over RMI? If you already have a client-server architecture it should only be a matter of developing the browser based interface.
5 years ago
You seem to feel very strongly this way but you haven't really given any reasons. Can you provide any imagined example of how passing a message is superior to passing an object?
5 years ago
You probably need to have the security manager loaded by the JVM. Also need a security policy that grants permission. on jvm command line

-Djava.security.manager -Djava.security.policy=file:F:\client.policy

client policy file contains
grant {
permission java.security.AllPermission;
};

maybe something similar for the server.
5 years ago
I have used message passing. In fact, message passing predates RMI. I found the idea of remote objects much easier to work with than messages. As someone that oversees communication, I'd rather pass the objects. I would pass messages only when the bandwidth was limited or some other efficiency reason.

Exactly why is RMI and object passing viewed as dead in an OO world? Or are you suggesting we are pulling back from the OO concept to some degree?
5 years ago
That was it I think. FF did not support that wide range of java plugins. I installed the latest and I'm back chasing cows again
7 years ago
The link http://www.javaranch.com/game/game2.jsp

pauses for a second then takes me here

http://java.com/en/download/inc/windows_new_xpi.jsp

The link http://www.javaranch.com/game.jsp

Just has text on the page. I assume there is a window on the page somewhere that's supposed to be the game, but I can't tell as there is no big square space open.

I'm using Firefox 3.6 and IE 7 but I think IE is using some old version of Java. I think our time card program at work uses Microsoft's Java so I had to keep the browser set that way...

I have several versions installed. Hmm, I may have stumbled into some political mumbo jumbo
Firefox is disabling the java plugin
Java 2 Plugin v1.5_00-1.6_99. Reason: These versions of the Java plugin are no longer supported by Oracle and cause severe stability issues for Firefox 3.6 and later (see bug 634639)
7 years ago
I cannot get the Rules roundup to work. Does it require a specific version of Java?
7 years ago