Is anyone out there using serialization instead of RMI? Seems like most posts are problems dealing with RMI. Also, is anyone using a thread pool type server implmentation (producer/consumer design)?
Conor Allen
Ranch Hand
Joined: Apr 27, 2001
Posts: 32
posted
0
Nope ... I preferred to use RMI rather that develop my own protocol Conor
Brad Manning
Greenhorn
Joined: Jun 01, 2001
Posts: 6
posted
0
simple sockets over tcp seems much less complex than the rmi implmentation. seems to me that alot of people are having trouble with their rmi.
Conor Allen
Ranch Hand
Joined: Apr 27, 2001
Posts: 32
posted
0
Not too sure there - in terms of extending the app in future. You have to maintain a protocol. any extention might require an extention of that protocol. You need to make sure that if you reuse the existing protocol in an unexpected way that it does not do something 'interesting'. Using serialisation may be easier but IMHO I reckon that rmi would be easier to maintain. It really is up to you. Whaterver you are most confortable with. I thought that the rmi approach would be more flexible and intersting. Anyway, whatever you choose you will need to justify your choice in the followup exam. Conor
0
