Alan, Excuse me if I'm a bit frustrated by this issue ...
We keep going around and around on this issue. We had a discussion with Stuart and the JCK team and Stuart didn't want to change the specification. Has he now changed his mind? Security and configuration issues aside, I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to remote activate an Object in an API that is supposed implement "Remote Method Invocation" support. The fact that it only supports activation on a local host seems to be a bug to me. Bob. On Jul 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 10/07/2013 21:15, Stephen Flores wrote: >> Bob, Sean, >> >> Please review this webrev >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sflores/8016036/webrev.00/ >> >> for RFE/CCC: 8016036 RMI specification needs to be updated to allow >> Activation on remote hosts > I didn't see any replies to this but I chatted briefly with Stuart Marks > about this a few days ago as it's not clear (to me anyway) that this is the > right thing to do. In particular it would be good to understand why the > specification can't be changed to allow for environments that doesn't support > multiple VM instances or where it's not possible to launch a new VM. This > would amount to not supporting activation in such environments. Has this > approach been explored? It could of course require being creative in the > specifications but there are other examples of this type of thing. > > -Alan
