Hi Akanimo ,
I agree that i dont need to make my Client a Remote object. The reason i did that in the first place was to implement call backs.But i guesss i 'll have to revert on that one.
i think i need to rephrase my previous post .
In the local mode ,i m not using the rmiclient.instead my factory returns an instance of the rmiserver .the calls to the server are made from the GUI classes using a object of type xyz .so the gui classes are totally unaware of the mode the application is working in .The reason ,i need stubs /skeletons is bcoz of the fact that rmiserver is a remote object and hence the jvm looks for stubs and skeletons .
yes i think it might be a good idea to name my classes accoring to the mode .but again,i m using the same classes for both modes of the application ..except for the fact that i m eliminating the rmi client in the local mode .
hope to hear more comments
cheers
pac