> > Hi!
> >
> > Dan OConnor wrote:
> > > The example of multiple distribution protocols is interesting and not
> > > immediately obvious to me. I think I could make a case that a
> > > single deployment of an EJB should be able to have multiple
> > > distribution protocols. The basic argument is that the distribution
> > > strategy is independent of the business logic (in much the same
> > > way that a view is independent of a model in MVC).
> > <snip>
> >
> > I agree completely. There's just one tiny little catch: if an EJB does
> > getEJBObject() what should he get? A JRMP EJBObject, or an IIOP
> > EJBObject, or..? Because of this it is impossible to support multiple
> > protocols/deployment, hence multiple deployments (one per protocol) is
> > necessary. :-(
>
> Oops. Good point Rickard.
>
> Would a possible solution be to just return an EJBObject of the
> same type as the original client used? (A possible optimization
> would be to use a JRMP EJBObject, but to substitute one of the
> type the original client used if the object passes through the
> boundary of the jBoss server [i.e. is returned to the client].)
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Dan
Just for the record, since this is theoretical.
The inability to support protocols is just an implementation one. There is
nothing fundamental, and in fact it would be TRIVIAL to pass that
information in the MethodInvocation.
marc
>
> >
> > > Let me make the case by example. Say that you have two
> > > distribution protocols for an entity bean. If our application has
> > > exclusive access to the database, wouldn't it be reasonable to use
> > > the same cached entity instance for an access via either protocol?
> > > This would only be possible if the component had a one-to-many
> > > relationship with distribution protocols. (Note that this is
> different
> > > from the situation where a resource or environment entry is
> > > different; the EJB container could not reuse a cached instance,
> > > because it would behave differently based on its corresponding
> > > deployment parameters.)
> >
> > Since apps should be accessed by session beans, this isn't that a big a
> > problem. Use JRMP for EntityBeans to let Sessions access them
> > "internally", and use multiple sessions with various protocols to access
> > the app from the outside.
> >
> > However, you're right in theory. If we only could figure out a way to
> > implement it consistently I'm all for it.
> >
> > /Rickard
> >
> > --
> > Rickard �berg
> >
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.telkel.com
> > http://www.jboss.org
> > http://www.dreambean.com
> >
>
>
>
>
