RMI - JRMP 与 IIOP
我知道 JRMP 会为每个调用请求打开一个新套接字。 此外，IIOP 可以为多个请求共享单个打开的套接字。
正如维基百科所述：
术语 RMI 的使用可以仅表示编程接口，也可以表示 API 和 JRMP，而术语 RMI-IIOP（读：RMI over IIOP）表示将大部分功能委托给支持 CORBA 实现的 RMI 接口.
在我的论文中，我必须判断该陈述是否真/假的问题之一是：
RMI 服务器为多个调用请求共享一个套接字。
此时，考虑到它是 JRMP 还是 IIOP 服务器，是否探讨该问题尚不明确。 我是否可以安全地假设，如果问题仅说明 RMI ，那么在这种情况下它将暗示它是 JRMP 服务器而不是 IIOP 服务器？
我希望我已经说清楚了。
I know that JRMP opens a new socket for every invocation request.
Also that IIOP can share a single opened socket for multiple requests.
As stated by Wikipedia:
Usage of the term RMI may denote solely the programming interface or may signify both the API and JRMP, whereas the term RMI-IIOP (read: RMI over IIOP) denotes the RMI interface delegating most of the functionality to the supporting CORBA implementation.
One of the questions in my paper where I had to say whether the statement was true/false said:
RMI Servers share a single socket for multiple invocation requests.
At this point,there was ambiguity whether the question was probed considering it was a JRMP or an IIOP server. Is it safe for me to assume that if the questions states only RMI , then in that case it would imply it was a JRMP server and not an IIOP
server?
I hope I've made myself clear.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
不，没有。 RMI 客户端使用连接池。
我认为该陈述具有误导性，我已更正它。新措辞表明，术语“RMI”可以指 API 或任何实现，包括 JRMP、IIOP、JERI、JBoss Remoting 等，而“RMI-IIOP”特指 RMI超过 IIOP。
该声明含糊不清、具有误导性并且依赖于实施。
不。但在这种情况下，这没有任何区别。
No it doesn't. The RMI client uses connection pooling.
I consider that statement misleading and I've corrected it. The new wording says that the term 'RMI' could refer to the API or any implementation, including JRMP, IIOP, JERI, JBoss Remoting, ..., whereas 'RMI-IIOP' specifically refers to RMI over IIOP.
The statement is ambiguous, misleading, and implementation-dependent.
No. But in this case it doesn't make any difference.
不，RMI 可以共享套接字或根据 RMI 客户端实现的需要创建套接字。这种笼统的说法是不真实的。
No, RMI can share sockets or create them as needed depending on the RMI client implementation. Such a sweeping statement wouldn't be true.