Thanks for the info, Dan. Of course the next most obvious question is, can we make this better?
Can the throwable catch be replaced with an Exception and a ServerError catch. Of course this means making the docs explicit in that all remote stacks must behave as BasicInvocationDispatcher does and also changing the signature of InvocationHandler.invoke. Is it as easy as that, does anyone know? To my gut, being able to distinguish between a remote and a local critical problem would be a good thing. I'm just curious to see if rather than judging over things like this with log statements whether or not we can improve the behaviour. Cheers, Tom On 3 Apr 2011 21:19, "Dan Creswell" <[email protected]> wrote: An Error gets wrapped into a ServerError which is a subclass of remote exception so long as you're using a BasicInvocationDispatcher (see the description for dispatch). For other remote stacks you mightn't get such behaviour and as far as I can see from a quick skim of the docs, it's not explicitly required to behave as BasicInvocationDispatcher does. Note also that InvocationHandler.invoke throws Throwable which allows the proxy of a remote service implementation to return anything it likes for any reason e.g. Error. Dan. On 3 April 2011 20:33, Tom Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not saying you're wrong, I'...
