passing objects w/RMI

[nicoeschpiko]

I am wondering if objects passed as parameters in RMI methods need to exist within the context of classes that implement interfaces? I have created a client class that implements an interface:

public class Client extends java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject implements ATMListener {

where ATMListener is:

public interface ATMListener extends java.rmi.Remote {

and the client itself can successfully be passed as a parameter to an RMI method. However, when I try to pass other objects with a class definition extending java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject, which are self-contained (i.e. are not class files implementing interfaces as in the Client's case), I get the error java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: argument type mismatch associated with the RMI method that the object serves as a parameter. Do these objects need to be defined as the Client is (an interface that extends java.rmi.Remote, and an implementation class that extends java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject and implements the interface)? If so, what is the reason for this? It is also very likely that I am totally off base with this error, in which case suggestions as to the cause are very welcome. Thanks in advance for your assistance!

[JosAH]

I am wondering if objects passed as parameters in RMI methods need to exist within the context of classes that implement interfaces? I have created a client class that implements an interface:

Their classes need to implement the Serializable interface, that's all. Of course they can implement other interfaces as well.

kind regards,

Jos

[nicoeschpiko]

The objects I am trying to pass both extend java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject (which implements Serializable). These classes are defined as:

package class.project;

import java.rmi.RemoteException;


public class AccountInfo extends java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject {
	/**
	 * 
	 */
	private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
	private int account_number;
	private int pin_number;
	
	public AccountInfo(int account_number, int pin_number) throws RemoteException {
		super();
		this.account_number = account_number;
		this.pin_number = pin_number;
	}
	
	public int getAccountNumber() {
		return this.account_number;
	}
	
	public void setAccountNumber(int account_number) {
		this.account_number = account_number;
	}
	
	public int getPinNumber() {
		return this.pin_number;
	}
	
	public void setPinNumber(int pin_number) {
		this.pin_number = pin_number;
	}
}

and

package class.project;

import java.rmi.RemoteException;


public class TransactionNotification extends java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject {
	/**
	 * 
	 */
	private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
	private String notification;
	
	public TransactionNotification (String msg) throws RemoteException {
		super();
		notification = msg;
	}
	
	public String toString() {
		return notification;
	} 
}

The method defined in the ATM class that exists on the registry is:

public Float getBalance(AccountInfo account_info) throws java.rmi.RemoteException, ATMException, SecurityException, Exception {

and this listener method existing on the client returns the same error message:

public void receiveTransactionNotification(TransactionNotification tn)

.

Please let me know if the calls to these methods need to be provided for clarification. Thanks!

[JosAH]

The objects I am trying to pass both extend java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject (which implements Serializable). These classes are defined as: [ snip ]

Please let me know if the calls to these methods need to be provided for clarification. Thanks!

Don't do that; any object extending UnicastRemoteObject is supposed to stay a remote object and just skeletons and/or stubs are passed around. Ordinary objects that should go over the wire should just implement Serializable.

kind regards,

Jos

[nicoeschpiko]

Thanks! I later realized that the object only needed to be passed by value, so the suggestion was appropriate. However, I am still curious as to how the stub equivalent would have been implemented.

[JosAH]

Thanks! I later realized that the object only needed to be passed by value, so the suggestion was appropriate. However, I am still curious as to how the stub equivalent would have been implemented.

I don't understand your question; stubs live on the client side calling into a naming service (rmi registry) that supplies a skeleton that serves as a proxy for the real thing living on the server side. In the old day you had to generate those stubs and skeletons yourself with the rmic tool; nowadays it is done just before running the server object(s) and running the stub object(s).

kind regards,

Jos