🚀 go-pugleaf

Here is Microsoft's published reason for excluding RMI support from the unpatched
IE4  (taken from http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/news/rmijni.htm):

------------Microsoft Quote ------------------------------------------------------
 Remote Method Invocation (RMI)

This technology lets objects communicate over a network. Why don't we like it?
Because it     has significant performance and scalability problems. Because it's
not secure. And because it can't communicate with objects written in languages other
than Java.

Our technology for object communication is DCOM. It already exists. We support it in
the Java virtual machine built into Windows and Internet Explorer. DCOM is robust,
secure, all the buzzwords. And it supports communication between Java and non-Java
objects.

We do, however, provide RMI for those developers who need it. The technology is
available on our FTP site.

In summary, we don�t believe leaving any of these proprietary Sun technologies out
of Internet Explorer 4.0 harms the browser�s Java compatibility in any way, while
some of the technologies we have added enhance Internet Explorer 4.0�s speed and
overall performance.
---------End Microsoft Quote -------------------------

In other words, Microsoft is protecting us from hurting ourselves with inferior
technology.  Since RMI has nothing (!?) to do with Java compatibility and is instead
a "proprietary Sun technology," we shouldn't be concerned.    I feel safer, don't
you? :o)

- Marc


Bruno da Silva Bozza wrote:

> Simon Waters wrote:
>
> >  Marc Jourdenais wrote in article <3482E833.E945E691@pcn.com>...
> >
> > >Yes and no...
> > >IE4 can run applets that use RMI, but Microsoft chose not to include the
> > >necessary base classes.  You can get a patch from the Microsoft site
> > >containing the RMI classes or put the Sun JDK in your classpath ahead of
> > >the Microsoft classes so that IE picks up actual Java base classes.
> > >
> > >Of course, requiring all your IE users to patch their browser installation
> > >may not be acceptable from a practical standpoint.
> > >
> >
> > Then again if you include the appropriate links to Microsoft on the page,
> > you might think of it as doing them a favour ?
>
>    Now I really understand the lawsuit. It's deliberate. I mean, they could have
> put their stuff in another package, still ship RMI classes and let the public
> decide. Does Microsoft at least give a reason why they chose not to include
> these classes (other from damaging Java)?