Paul already talked about a couple ways of tuning the use of remote calls without having to do it on a case by case basis.
However, the thumb rule is that: - Either you build the system to be scalable (which might make it a bit less efficient when having it working in a single machine when compared to a non scalable system); - Or you use some "transparency" mechanism and you tend to loose robustness/control when compared to a system that is aware of possible communications issues and tries to handle them. Some communications issues can be recovered from and some not. And sometimes the decision to try to recover or not depends on the kind of operation you are performing. And I also agree with Paul that the RemoteException is NOT a bit help. Do you believe on magic bullets that work everywhere? We keep trying to get as close to having them as possible but... Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:19 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > So what if you need to move an object that is defined as local to be > load balanced across machines? I think you're wrong on that one. If > you have to define it as local you loose scalability by definition > unless you accept the hardware vendor's edition of scalability (buy an > E10000 instead and junk your old machine ;-) ). > > On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 08:06, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > I do not think so. Handling in a proper way situations that are > > specific to a remote call does not mean that the architecture of > > the app must be less scalable. > > > > > > Have fun, > > Paulo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:03 AM > > > To: Jakarta General List > > > Subject: RE: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > > > > > > > Albeit at the expense of scalability > > > > > > On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 09:51, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > > > I think that the key bit is: > > > > > and it is a mistake to try to program > > > > > as though a > > > > > remote call had the same characteristics as a local one. > > > > > > > > Your app will always be more robust if you do NOT ignore the > > > > specific issues of a remote call. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have fun, > > > > Paulo Gaspar > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:50 PM > > > > > To: 'Jakarta General List' > > > > > Subject: [OT] RE: J2EE considered harmful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tim. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your point of view, we've been trying to avoid EJBs > > > > > as much as > > > > > possible. But there's one thing I don't understand. > > > > > > > > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > > > > > De: Tim Hyde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Yes, EJB is a complete bodge of a design, and RPC invocation > > > > > > techniques > > > > > > would only be acceptable if they were completely transparent, > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > requiring you to do so much plumbing yourself. But > > > > > > personally, I think RPC > > > > > > is entirely overrated, and it is a mistake to try to program > > > > > > as though a > > > > > > remote call had the same characteristics as a local one. > > > > > > > > > > Why is it a mistake? I think a remote proxy is a great way to > > > make remote > > > > > calls, shielding the developer from the complexity of it all. > > > The recent > > > > > discussion about AltRMI has shown that there's a lot of > > > interest in using > > > > > proxies, but it was Sun's implementation (the Remote* > stuff) that was > > > > > flawed. > > > > > > > > > > Un saludo, > > > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > -- > > > www.superlinksoftware.com > > > www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java > > > http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html > > > - fix java generics! > > > > > > > > > The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to > > > vote. > > > -Ambassador Kosh > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- www.superlinksoftware.com www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html - fix java generics! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
