3 Replies Latest reply on Nov 19, 2008 3:34 AM by Trustin Lee

    JBoss Remoting form MIDlet

    Christian Knappe Newbie

      Hello all,

      I am very new to JBoss Remoting. What I am trying to do is porting a SocketClient to a J2ME environment (a MIDlet). I have CLDC 1.1 and MIDP 2.0. I found the org.jboss.remoting.transport.socket.MicroSocketClientInvoker but I can't get it work.

      Is there someone who has some experiences in doing that - or any other ideas connecting a MIDlet to JBoss?

      Thanks for help


        • 1. Re: JBoss Remoting form MIDlet
          Trustin Lee Apprentice

          J2ME support was planned long time ago, and MicroSocketClientInvoker is the product of such an effort. However, it was not completed unfortunately. AFAIK, there was not much demand for such a feature so far.

          If I am going to implement a J2ME version of Remoting, I'd implement it from scratch while reusing only the core classes related with serialization. It's because it would rather easier to maintain J2ME compatibility from future Remoting changes - it should be a separate module.

          I am sorry that it didn't help much.

          • 2. Re: JBoss Remoting form MIDlet
            Christian Knappe Newbie

            Thanks for your reply trustin, but you'r right ;-) - it really does not help me. What I not understand is, that there is not much demand for this feature. If I have to integrate a mobile Device over a socket connection into JBoss I think JBoss remoting is the only way doing this in a EJB conform way. But OK - I have to work around an put an other layer between my mobile device and the JBoss.

            If someone has other idea of doing this - please tell me.

            Thanks a lot.

            • 3. Re: JBoss Remoting form MIDlet
              Trustin Lee Apprentice

              Ah, that's a good idea. You could write a simple RPC bridge that can speak Remoting protocol and a very simple J2ME-ready protocol. I think that's rather more a viable option. Perhaps Remoting 3 might need to include this feature .. ?