Good suggestions, I avoided Remote, so as not to be confused with Remote
objects.
Cloning is close, however Distributed objects can upgrade to a completely
different class implementation and migrate the old implementation object data,
way more flexible than Serializable, while utilising the bes
Il giorno 23/giu/2014, alle ore 13:24, Peter Firmstone
mailto:j...@zeus.net.au>> ha scritto:
recreate themselves remotely
Why not
* RemoteRecreationFactory
* DistributedCloningFactory
* or a combination of the above?
This way the name is after the goal of the class, not its implem
I agree with the suggested rename to DistributedObjectFactory.
Or, you could bring the "recreation" aspect into the name somehow... (I
don't have any ideas at present).
regards,
Dawid
On 23/06/2014 13:24, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Distributed object use SerialReflectionFactory to recreate themsel
Due to the number of test results being emailed to the list, I've now
diverted them to my own email address, any interesting failures will be
relayed to dev@river.apache.org manually from now on.
Regards,
Peter.
Distributed object use SerialReflectionFactory to recreate themselves
remotely using one of their public constructors, a static factory method
or builder object, however one thing about SerialReflectionFactory
bothers me.
SerialReflectionFactory is named after it's implementation, that is, it
Distributed object use SerialReflectionFactory to recreate themselves
remotely using one of their public constructors, a static factory method
or builder object, however one thing about SerialReflectionFactory
bothers me.
SerialReflectionFactory is named after it's implementation, that is, it
