RemoteObject would need an implementation of an interface
in order to invoke it... how would you specify this? It seems that once you've
specified the implementation you don't really care about the interface
anymore... so you're back to a concrete object.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Modien
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:09 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Java intefaces as remote objects?
Instead of using POJO's can we use Java Intefaces definitions
instead?
When a guy on our team tested it he got a class instantiation
error...
If the answer is no then I gess I could add it to the wish list for
2.0.
Thanks
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
