----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Pita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: jBoss Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:22 PM Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] rmi,transactions,orbs [was: TransactionImpl] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rickard �berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: jBoss Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:30 PM > Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] rmi,transactions,orbs [was: TransactionImpl] > > >> 6) Most orbs offer another services (persistence, events, security) which > >> are pertinent to ejb containers implementations. > > > I think we are better off by doing persistence and security ourselves. > > Events is provide by SpyderMQ. > > Altough I'm not completely sure about how tighly coupled are persistence and > security with jBoss but, if they are plug-able (which is the right word?), I > could say that more choices don't hurt () > > >> 7) The corba component model is a more robust ground for a ejb container > >> implementation > > > Hm.. more robust ground than.. what? > > Perhaps this is a matter of taste but I think about it this way: > > There are several orb implementations, so there are (some) experience in the > field and more choices. > The orb (and services, etc) design and standarization is a thoughtful and > long process > Orb are cospicuous, so they are tested in more scenarios. > > >> and the way to align with it (not necessarily now and > >> possibly never!) is building it on top of a corba (2.3 or 3? we surely > need > >> a POA) orb. > > > I don't mind plugging in a ORB for the distribution of the container, > > but does it have to be more tightly coupled than that? > > Right now, I think that plugging it using the JMX machinery should be > enough. > > Do you have another kind of solution in mind? > > >/Rickard > Carlos > > -- > Rickard �berg > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.telkel.com > http://www.jboss.org > http://www.dreambean.com > > >
