> I just played with WebService in jdk6 and i dont understand why its like
> rmi - I have to generate classes. why they were able to make ejb3 simple,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> higher level of abstraction? Please tell me. They make everything simpler,
> but rmi will never change and everybody is ok with that.
I hope I understood your question right - For remote invocations, be it
a Remote Object or a Web service, you'd need client stubs. The client
stubs act as a "proxy" and actually make the remote call, giving your
code the impression that the call is local.
The difference between RMI and Webservices, in this case, would be that
RMI uses JRMP, a binary protocol to invoke remote methods, while
WebServices (as a standard practice) use SOAP over HTTP, which is a
text-based protocol. SOAP attachments can be used to give a binary
flavor, but in and of itself, SOAP/HTTP is text.
-cheers,
Manish
Raveman - 24 Jan 2007 03:39 GMT
>> I just played with WebService in jdk6 and i dont understand why its like
>> rmi - I have to generate classes. why they were able to make ejb3 simple,
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> text-based protocol. SOAP attachments can be used to give a binary
> flavor, but in and of itself, SOAP/HTTP is text.
By why generate subs and not just use jdk dynamic proxy or some hand written
proxy? Is rmi really impossible without code generation?