On 29/07/2013 07:12, Bob Vandette wrote:
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.
I understand that this is a bit frustrating but I think we should at
least explore relaxing the specification (if it hasn't been explored
already). I'm not an export on RMI but I'm just concerned that the
currently "agreed" solution to do the activation on another system feels
more like a solution to get tests to pass. Stuart told me that he would
look into it and see if relaxing the specification is feasible or not.
Stuart - do you have anything to add?
-Alan.
