RE: [flexcoders] cairngorm with a business delegate on the app server

[Jeff Krueger]

Steven,               Thanks.  Yes the get instance is for a factory, and I would like to not give up the abstraction that this gives me.  That is why I don’t want to remote right to my instance.  I think creating a class on the server, something like flexUserManger, would be my best bet.  In the constructor I will call the getInstance then just implement all the methods using that instance.  I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something in flex.  Since I am comfortable in java I don’t want to run back to java every time I hit an obstacle if flex has a way of handling it.   Thanks   Jeff     From: Steven Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] cairngorm with a business delegate on the app server   Hi Jeff,         In my flex loginDelegate class I basically want to call the authenticate method on IUserManager.  Do I have to create a new java class to encapsulate the getInstance from my business delegate?  Or is there a way that I can setup a remote object in flex to handle this.  I could setup the flex service locator to talk straight to my IUserManager implementation but would prefernot to do that.     So if I'm understanding you correctly, your preferred solution would be to be able to call getInstance() on the Flex client, hold that instance on the client, and then only invoke methodson that instance ?   Clearly, since Flex isn't a JVM, this isn't possible ... so there's a few routes to consider here.  An SOA would typically assume a stateless service; so what I'd suggest is that you shouldn't be needing to go through the getInstance() method, but should just be pointing Flex at either your implementation class, or, as you suggested, at a class that encapsulates your getInstance() behavior.   Either way, my preference would be that whichever of those concrete implementations you are "remoting" onto, that it be stateless.  If however, you wish a stateful invocation of your class, you can of course configure RemoteObject to be stateful.   My suspicion is that your need to go through getInstance() is to allow a factory-type lookup on the server however; that being the case, I'd suggest that your best route is to provide a  Service on the server-side, that encapsulates your getInstance() lookup.   This make sense ?  Happy to discuss further if I've missed your motivation...   Best,   Steven   -- Steven Webster Technical Director iteration::two   This e-mail and any associated attachments transmitted with it may contain confidential information and must not be copied, or disclosed, or used by anyone other than the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please destroy this e-mail, and any copies of it, immediately.   Please also note that while software systems have been used to try to ensure that this e-mail has been swept for viruses, iteration::two do not accept responsibility for any damage or loss caused in respect of any viruses transmitted by the e-mail. Please ensure your own checks are carried out before any attachments are opened. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 09/03/2005