Is there a difference between using the return value of UnicastRemoteObject.exportObject and the exported object?

Question

When exporting an object I find that both this

LocateRegistry.createRegistry(1099);
ObjectToExport obj = new ObjectToExport();
UnicastRemoteObject.exportObject(obj, 1099);
Naming.rebind("ObjectName", obj);

and this

LocateRegistry.createRegistry(1099);
ObjectToExport obj = new ObjectToExport();
Naming.rebind("ObjectName", UnicastRemoteObject.exportObject(obj, 1099));

work. In the first I don't use the return value of exportObject and in the second I do. Is there a difference between these 2 ways of exporting an object? The API only says that the return value is the remote object stub .

Answer 1

There is no difference at the export step, but you're also binding the object, and there's a difference at this step. In the first step you're passing the actual object; in the second, the stub. However the semantics of RMI are that exported remote objects are passed to remote methods as their own stubs, so the actual effect at the Registry is the same.