Reading back over Peter's email, I believe that he was simply
reiterating that a client requires more than just the service's
interface when remote code downloading is disabled, thus you must
include the entire contents of the service-dl.jar in the client's
classpath. While adding the entire server.jar would work, it's
overkill for Patrick's issue.
On Oct 2, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Geoffrey Arnold wrote:
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:27 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
Just to be clear, you mean service proxy implementation classes
too, the entire contents of the services' -dl.jar files? (Service
interfaces used by the client will typically be loaded locally
anyway.)
It looks like in the case of the JSK, the service-dl.jars are just a
subset of the service.jars. What's the reasoning behind including
the service-dl.jars in the client codebase if Patrick's already
including the service.jars there?
Thanks,
Geoff.
