But because I like you I will waste my time :)))
> > > Again I don't see a fundamental problem. It can be all modeled as
> > > contextual information that travels with the MethodInvocation...
> >
> > No. When you call getEJBObject() you get one object back. That should be
> > used to communicate with the container. This object can only support one
> > protocol to talk to the container. You're saying "use the contextual
> > information". And just what would that "contextual information be"? The
> > name of the protocol used by the "client"? That won't give you much
There you go problem solved... Like I said keep a reference to the CI in the
MI. Have the CtxIMpl lookup the right type of EJBObject from that
"dynamicly passed CI". DONE. See below for your "critic"...
> > though. For example, client X may call session A through protocol Foo,
> > which calls session B through protocol Bar, which in turn calls
> > getEJBObject. The "client" in this case used Bar, so lets return an
> > EJBObject using the Bar protocol. So now B returns it to A which returns
> > it to X. But X can't use the EJBObject since it doesn't know how to do
> > the Bar protocol.
> >
LOL rickard you are describing a problem that is generic to EJB... that has
_little_ to do with our ability or not to support multiple invocation layer
per container on one bean. Then are in fact cleanly orthogonal... you have
the exact same problem with one container per bean. End of case. That
ability is implementation related, you fail to show any "fundamental" issue
other than "EJB's wire protocols are not portable" :)))LOL...
Bottom line is to Dan's theoretical question, I would answer "yes" we can
support multiple invocations for a bean (in fact we should try it with ZOAP
when we have some time and we are doing "grand-unification" of invocation
channels, not today though :)). We can even have the names be different in
JNDI, since at least per your design Rickard (and that is a good idea) it is
the ContainerInvoker that does the registration. Clever, would work imho...
and stop scaring little boys with your "fundamental" problems :)))))
marc
> > And that is the problem. If beans couldn't call beans it would be much
> > simpler, because then the above wouldn't happen.
> >
> > I suggest that you also spend some "considerable thought" on this before
> > call it "not a fundamental problem". Which it is. :-/
> >
> > /Rickard
> >
> > --
> > Rickard �berg
> >
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.telkel.com
> > http://www.jboss.org
> > http://www.dreambean.com
> >
> >
