They are talking stateless with regard to any container instance.

----- Original Message -----
From: "danch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Invocation and MethodInvocation


> When we talk about 'stateless' interceptors, do we really mean
> stateless, or do we merely mean stateless with regard to bean instance
> and client?
>
> -danch
>
> Scott M Stark wrote:
>
> > Any of the interceptors can be made stateless, its a question of the
cost
> > of reassociating the state from the container meta-data and having to
> > cast from an opaque generic form to the data required by the
interceptor.
> > The current state in the security interceptors is just cached data
derived
> > from the container meta-data. In the case of the
SecurityProxyInterceptor
> > the derived data can be an expensive transformation of the container
> > meta-data.
> >
> >>>|should not need to know or store the interceptor-specific state info
> >>>
> > for
> >
> >>>|its chain.  IMHO using a catch-all (or cache-all) map is a bit of a
> >>>
> > hack.
> >
> >>>|In particular, this conflicts directly with the security proxy
> >>>
> > interceptor.
> >
> >>
> >>But isn't the state that the security interceptor uses really meta-data
> >>about the container? Shouldn't the interceptors get all meta-data from
> >>the *container*? If that is done, you'd get very clean separation of
> >>concerns, where the interceptor act upon the meta-data, but is not
> >>responsible for the actual meta-data. To me that seems more natural.
> >>
> >>So, the point isn't that the security interceptors should be stateless.
> >>In fact, they may very well be stateful. However, they should not have
> >>state *particular to any one container* (compare with Stateless Session
> >>Beans).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Reply via email to