> The local objects do *not* have to throw RemoteExceptions. The Remote
> interface does have to declare that it throws RemoteExceptions, but the
> local class does not. In Java you are allowed to remove exceptions when
> implementing an interface, you just can't add any new ones.
>
> So if the interface declares that it throws RemoteExceptions then you
> can use the same interface for your EJB objects as your local objects.
> Furthermore, your local objects do not need to throw the
> RemoteException which makes coding the client side much more tolerable.
But the client will be written against the interface, not the object
implementation, and the exceptions are declared in the interface, so my
client code will be peppered with try/catch(RemoteException) blocks (which
are inevitable I know) even if the object never throws one
Matthew
===========================================================================
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".
