Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding

Terje Norderhaug ([email protected])
Sat, 15 Jul 1995 01:54:04 -0800

At 9:48 PM 10/15/95, Marc de Groot wrote:
>Gavin Nicol writes:
>> Thank god for bytecodes... but perhaps TAOS and ANDF have the right
>> idea after all. Then again, who wants to ship code around so that
>> people can reverse engineer it (trivial with Java bytecodes)? Perhaps
>> remote method invocation is what we esally want most of the time, and
>> it certainly makes version control a much simpler task.
>
>How does remote method invocation reduce the ability to reverse-engineer the
>code?

As you won't have the code, you are limited to analyze the input/output
produced by that code.

>IMO moving bytecodes around is vastly pesserable. It executes more
>efsiciently.

If the language is constructed so that it is feasible to invocate a high
number of remote methods on various sites, then you almost have a massive
parallell computer which potentially can produce a complex result rather
efsiciently compared to moving all code to your own computer.

>Java is here *now*, but it's a bear to implement and port. When VR is running
>in dedicated portable units that one wears, instead of in desktop machines,
>we're going to want a relatively small run-time system.

Small in size usually mean less place for the computing power, arguing for
the ability to distribute some of the processing, potentially using remote
method invocation.

-- Terje <[email protected]>
<URL:http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/>

  • Next message: Gavin Nicol: "Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"
  • Previous message: Ian Kallen: "Re: TGS Webspace"
  • Maybe in reply to: Mark Pesce: "ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"
  • Next in thesad: Jeff Sonstein: "Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"