Don't worry about it, I am actually looking at the SAR dependency stuff and that is really cool stuff. I really like it. So we will need to find a way to solve the problem down the road.
Don't worry about it for now, some other time, leave the init()/start() as we are building the functionality. Once it is stable we will deal with the complex dependency cases, but don't worry about it for right now. FYI I am actually rewritting the invokers as we speak, it is simpler, but I still need more time and yes, you are correct they are MBeans in the new version :) you will be able to deploy an invoker to the JMX node by simply dropping the xml/sar in the deploy and voila it will be JMX manageable and what not. The same beans will be invocable with any new invoker you add (say .net style etc etc). pffff... one thing at a time, professor, one thing at a time... We are already juggling 20 balls, marcf |-----Original Message----- |From: David Jencks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] |Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:12 PM |To: marc fleury |Cc: Dain Sundstrom; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] MBean init/start change broke CMR | | |As I have pointed out repeatedly in the past few days it is not possible to |have non-trivial mbean init-start with mbean-ref style dependencies, |whereas it is pretty easy to fix these problems by explicitly noting the |dependencies. | |Note that the stuff I did only applies to mbeans: I did not remove the |init/destroy from the Service interface because it was being used so |heavily by the invokers, which are not currently mbeans as far as I can |tell. I think that the ContainerFactory is still calling init and start on |the interceptors (now both from the start() method), although it is |possible I messed up the order. I suspect very little in the test suite |would have worked if the interceptor setup was broken. | |david jencks | |On 2001.11.14 17:48:03 -0500 marc fleury wrote: |> Ok look, |> |> the invoker stuff also depends on a "init/start", I think that init/start |> isn't really an important thing to clean at this point (but I could be |> wrong, I have been proven wrong in the past). |> |> I didn't really fully follow the discussion either but can we put it back |> for the time being. |> |> We can clean down the road (if possible) |> |> marcf |> |> |-----Original Message----- |> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dain |> |Sundstrom |> |Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:12 PM |> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> |Subject: [JBoss-dev] MBean init/start change broke CMR |> | |> | |> |Hi all, |> | |> |I think that the merging of init and start has broken the CMR |> |code. The CMR |> |code depends on having a complete two-phase startup. In the phase 1 |> (init) |> |all of the relation ships are connected, and in phase 2 (start) these |> |relationships are used to create the entity tables with fks, relation |> |tables, and parse ejb-ql queries. I think that merging the two has |> changed |> |the system to call init and then start for each bean instead of init for |> |each bean and then start for each bean. |> | |> |I wasn't following the discussion about this, because I didn't think it |> |applied to the CMR code (and the messages were very long). I'm going to |> go |> |back and read the messages, but if anyone has a suggestion or can tell |> me |> |the resolution, I would appreciate it. |> | |> |-dain |> | |> |_______________________________________________ |> |Jboss-development mailing list |> |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |> |https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development |> |> |> _______________________________________________ |> Jboss-development mailing list |> [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development |> |> _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
