|java: is local. No distribution involved whatsoever.
I know... that's what bothers me.
|> 1- is java: == local a violation of the j2ee spec? (i.e RMH java: lookups
|> from the client wont' work right?
|
|No, see that's another story. The java: for clients will be local, *but*
|the bindings in the java: namespace on the client will point to a remote
|JNDI (through a LinkRef).
pfffff
you need to put the LinkRef you get from some place, please what is that
place...
or explain what you are thinking about... if an application deployer is to
set up the visibility of the java: namespaces then that needs to include the
client and I can't see how your "put a linkref" works for every VM on the
planet.
is there anything that you read in spec that says java: *is* VM local (is
there? I don't know honestly, let me know)
|It will work right.
...
:) see above
|> 2- I actually REALLY like the idea of a local inVM directory of jndi
|
|Yes, especially since most of the stuff we bind in it now don't make any
|sense outside of the VM.
|
correct
|> 3- be explicit then (thanks to the one that pointed out the correct
|> spelling, that will teach me to go loud :) so if you want to put all your
|> local stuff either put it in local: (like I want a system:) or do a
|> java:/comp/env/local/ whatever but name that "locality" if you must
|
|How about java:server/? E.g. java:server/TransactionManager and
|java:server/jdbc/MyPool
that is good but again when we move to cluster the fact that java: is VM
dependent kills the whole idea...
server: can mask a node "logical node" of server on multiVM and I want to
administer the Node, not the VM... putting the VM at the top of your naming
context is a mistake. (and linkref won't work that simply, you don't know
the VM apriori)
|> 4- I don't think java: is the right place for it, given 1 and 3
|
|Why not? It fits the bill IMHO. You seem to be hung up on the name...
yes :)
and no, I am hung up on scoping the naming per VM.
|> |Does this seem like a good idea? May I have your vote please.
|>
|> yes, very good idea, but wrong implementation imho
|
|Wrong implementation!? What is wrong with the implementation?? From what
|I can deduce above your only doubt is the name, i.e. "java:". Otherwise
|it fits what we want.
relax, I should have been more clear. I am not criticism the "code" just
that the idea of scoping VMs is smaller than server: for example and that
RMH clients won't work with that... the code is really good though :))) I
really like it :)))
marc
|
|/Rickard
|
|--
|Rickard �berg
|
|Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|http://www.telkel.com
|http://www.jboss.org
|http://www.dreambean.com
|
|
|
