Jules Gosnell wrote: > > I pressed 'send' without counting to 10 first on the last response. Sorry.
No probs - no offence taken. > I've obviously done a bad job of explaining myself so far. Is this > clearer ? Actually no - I preferred the slightly pissed off version for clarity :-) I actually think we are in agreement.. but don´t realize it. You say that the getExcecutionLocation() style API I suggest leaks clustering concerns into the webtier, but I am not suggesting that general container code calls this API. I am suggesting a that a cluster aware interceptor calls it. This is the GSM intercpetion contract of your last email. But given that interceptors are going to be very tier implementation specific and that Jetty has to write geronimo specific interceptors for security, transactions, .... then it appears natural to me that the G-jetty module is the natural place for that interceptor to live and we don't need to standardize it's contract. Or is it the existence of the standardized API between interceptor and Policy that you object to? Are your concerns such that you do not think this API can be implemented efficiently? Give me 30minutes and I will post my latest mental picture of how I would like to see the Cluster/Session API. cheers
