Hey ! Probably in that scenario we wont be going for LocalInterfaces at all. When I know in advance that I need to access one of the beans from another server I wont be designing it as a LocalInterface but as a RemoteInterface. Am I missing anything here ?
Regards, kris -----Original Message----- From: Vikram Naik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 12:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reg Local Intreface in EJB 2.0 Hello, So far so good ... but what if the components are separated among several servers to scale up the application ... we wont be able to take the adv of local interfaces.. and hence it does compromises the location transparency!!!!!!!! Thanks & Regards, Vikram Naik -----Original Message----- From: A mailing list for Enterprise JavaBeans development [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ramakrishna N Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reg Local Intreface in EJB 2.0 Hi, Location Transparency ? Its in the same VM right. In a cluster environment all the nodes will be sent the deployment information over the multicast-channel and after crossing the LoadBalancing "barrier", the call gets into one of the nodes and so its still the same-VM-lookup and so looking up of a LocalHome is not a Remote call in a cluster environment. Regards, kris -----Original Message----- From: SAMINATHAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:53 AM To: Ramakrishna N; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Reg Local Intreface in EJB 2.0 Does it not compromise on the location transparency? And how does it works in the Cluster environment? Thanks and Regards Saminathan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ramakrishna N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Reg Local Intreface in EJB 2.0 > Hi, > This look-up is not a remote method call as it happens for a remoteHome > lookup. So its a nice abstraction and a clearner way of implementation. > That's how all the verdors must be implementing it. > Have a nice day > regards, > kris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vikram Naik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Reg Local Intreface in EJB 2.0 > > > Hello All, > > In Ejb2.0 we have LocalHome and Local-Component Interfaces, which > can reduce the unnecessary overhead of remote calls if the Ejbs are in same > JVM. I was just pondering on one thought .... > > If the Ejb's are in same JVM then Why LookUP ???? ... can't there be some > other mechanism to get the home object.... > > Thanks & Regards > Vikram Naik > > ==========================================================================To > unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body > of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help". > > =========================================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body > of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help". =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help". ==========================================================================To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help". =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
