On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:04, Peter Donald wrote: > > Now RMI should continue to be used for client to server comms (JAMES and > > FTPServer use it for admin), but I really donlt think we need it for the > > inter-sar communication. Sun, sooner or later, are going to come along > > with a fresh replacement RMI. They are not adverse to such efforts > > (look at nio package in JDK1.4). That replacement is going to be a lot > > easier to use because it will be seamless. The RMI registry needs an > > overhaul too. > > RMI registry is only a toy API that grew as is some of the infrastructure. > However what I am talking about is the model. Whether it actually uses any > of the RMI code or rewrites it all (ie RMI/IIOP, RMI/JAXM, RMI/JRMP in EJB > servers, etc). I still think that being forced to deal with errors where > they are likely to occur is a good thing. > > I guess we will have to agree to disagree ;)
Another way of looking at it is - do you think that it is good or bad that most database classes declare they throw SQLExceptions? I see it as good - u ? -- Cheers, Pete --------------------------------------------------- "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities." -Josiah Stamp --------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
