Jon,
I agree whole heartedly. You got to think in terms of service based
architecture!
-Chris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Tirs�n [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 'local' entity beans vs dependent objects
>
> > So for example at design time where you aren't
> > concerned about
> > distribution and remote-vs.-local issues, you might
> > come up with the
> > need for a Person object. Without even thinking
> > about it, make sure
> > that all of Person's methods throw RemoteException,
> > even if Person
> > itself will not implement Remote.
>
> Yeah, well, I agree, RemoteException is the
> RuntimeException of J2EE... :-)
>
> What I don't agree about is that you definitely have
> to be concerned about distribution and
> remote-vs.-local issues in the design. You've heard it
> before and I'm gonna say it again "Networktransparancy
> is a myth!".
> If one does not use an architecture (ie. design)
> specially designed for a distributed system one simply
> get's a bad system. Distribution is _definitely_ a
> design-issue.
> If you do business-modelling or analysis it is not a
> concern though.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
> ==========================================================================
> =
> 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".
