8016036: RMI specification needs to be updated to allow Activation on remote hosts

[Alan Bateman]

On 29/07/2013 07:12, Bob Vandette wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Excuse me if I'm a bit frustrated by this issue ...
>
> We keep going around and around on this issue.  We had a discussion with Stuart and the JCK
> team and Stuart didn't want to change the specification.  Has he now changed his mind?
>
> Security and configuration issues aside, I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to remote
> activate an Object in an API that is supposed implement "Remote Method Invocation" support.
> The fact that it only supports activation on a local host seems to be a bug to me.
>
>
> Bob.
I understand that this is a bit frustrating but I think we should at 
least explore relaxing the specification (if it hasn't been explored 
already). I'm not an export on RMI but I'm just concerned that the 
currently "agreed" solution to do the activation on another system feels 
more like a solution to get tests to pass. Stuart told me that he would 
look into it and see if relaxing the specification is feasible or not. 
Stuart - do you have anything to add?

-Alan.