I thought that RMI-IIOP did *not* dynamically load classes from the
server.... this type of thing is not standard CORBA. (Ie, you can't
assume what "language" is on the other end... no guarantees that it
is Java.)
And IMO, dynamic class loading (ie, from the impl server) was one of
the biggest drawbacks of RMI-JRMP. It opens up more avenues for
security
attacks, does not perform as well as local classes, and introduces a
constant source of environment misconfiguration.
-eric
Alan Greenspan wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > I was very disappointed to find that CORBA does not allow the dynamic
> > distribution of classes. For example, if I have a parameter of type
> > Employee<interface>, and I marshall a class that implements this
> interface,
> > the class that implements must be present on the client. There were many
> > times that I took advantage of RMI's ability to do this "on the fly".
> >
>
> RMI-IIOP dynamically loads implementation classes the same way as RMI-JRMP.
> I don't think there are any issues here for EJB.
>
> Alan
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
