I understand and am intrigued by the idea, just stuck on the protocol invention 
bit.  Any ideas on how to do this using another more lightweight standard 
protocol? 

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: Jeremy Whitlock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Sent: Thu 10/27/2005 10:30 AM 
        To: Apache Directory Developers List 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: [naming] Enable Remote JNDI Access
        
        
        Phil,
             I want to use ApacheDS but it does not store binary data right now 
due to a bug and its not scheduled to be fixed for a few weeks.  Basically, I 
want to have a lightweight directory for storing MBean/References in the 
directory so that I can use JNDI to get to them easily.  This approach is 
similar to what Geronimo does with it's MBeans and what Weblogic does with it's 
MBeans.  That being said, I do know that ApacheDS is the directory used in 
Geronimo so I don't know why it would work for them but not for me but that is 
the information I got from #directory-dev on freenode, the same people that 
told me to contact you.  Ideally, I would like to have the lightweight provider 
in [naming] but have it networkable.  It would be nice not to have the overhead 
of LDAP but I can go that route if needed.  Thanks for getting back to me and 
for sharing your ideas.
        
        Take care,
             Jeremy
        
        
        On 10/27/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

                Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
                > Hey all,
                >      I would like to use directory-naming in my application 
but I need
                > to enable remote access to the in-memory JNDI provided by
                > directory-naming.  It would be great to have a user have a 
PROVIDER_URL 
                > of jndi://host:port and get a reference to the JNDI provided 
on the
                > server by directory-naming.  Can someone assist me with this?
                
                Why not use ldap into ADS directly?  If the problem is that 
[naming] 
                supports some things not provided by ADS (resource factories?) 
then it
                would make sense to do what Noel suggested some time ago, i.e., 
to
                integrate naming into ADS and use ldap to provide the remote 
access.
                Otherwise, we end up needing to invent another remote binding 
and 
                transport protocol, which may not be the best idea.
                
                If what you are after is the resources, a practical issue is 
that these
                are mostly returned by [naming] and other JNDI providers as 
*references*
                to locally generated resource instances - e.g., database 
connection
                pools.  Making use of these resources remotely requires a 
change in
                their programming model.  Not impossible, but requires that the 
resource
                providers and interface specs currently supported by [naming] 
be 
                redesigned.  For things like database connection pools, 
manageability
                and security would be problematic.
                
                What is your application trying to do?
                
                Phil
                
                


<<winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to