Well, as of this Sunday, there's been a "verbose" mode implemented for the
verifier. No, I didn't go through the RMI/IIOP part yet, but I will (today
& tomorrow).
Checkout the latest CVS and tell me if it's working for you. (You need some
broken beans, of course).
-- Juha
At 11:46 17.10.2000 -0400, you wrote:
> Well, on the user list they just hitting on one of the
>deficiencies in the current verifier mechanism - namely, that we aren't
>more specific than a message per level of the spec that was violated.
> One thing I'd definitely like to add is some context, which could
>perhaps be represented as $1 $2 parameters in the resource message or
>something. Examples of using this could be the name of the offending
>class or method. Or perhaps we could just add a colon on to the end of
>the message, followed by any context information - I guess that would be
>the easiest.
> The most painful section in my mind is indeed the "valid RMI-IIOP
>type" check, since it has to check dozens of things about each class,
>recursively to all classes that are referenced. It's very difficult to
>figure out exactly what caused the error.
> BTW - do we prevent circular references causing nasty loops here?
>
>Aaron
>
>
>
