|Just want to make it clear that we already have a "mixed mode" in some |sense. Right now you can deploy an EJB jar into an JRMP container and |another one into an IIOP container. Both at the same time and on the |same running server. | |But the EJB jars must be different, of course!
no no no, that is the point of 3.0, bill is right, I got poopoo in my brain this morning. Bill is absolutely right, thank god for bright guys <g> Here is how it will work Drop the bean, WITH NO INVOKER CONFIGURATION we create an MBean Independently drop sars with the invokers (already coded), for all the invokers we can have a home that has the right invoker in it. and VOILA detached invokers that can communicate with the target. So drop the discussion The only thing that is missing is that we need the JMX target name in ALL the clients, it is there one at a time (JRMP creates the interceptor for the JMX name etc), and the setup of the home with the right proxies. Bla bla bla, forget this, I will show you in spades. We will drop a bean and voila, available for Java/JRMP, Java/SOAP, Java/IIOP. If you want a IIOP one with any client we will need to work on it. drop the discussion I SUCK this morning. marcf | |At least one of them must have something that says: | | "rather than deploying me into a container of the default kind, deploy me | into a container of kind X". | |My idea would buy us just one thing: _the_same_ EJB jar file could be |deployed into different containers within the same running server. | |Best, | |Francisco | |> |> Again, switching mode is done at the command prompt already |> |> marcf |> |> |-----Original Message----- |> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of |> |Francisco Reverbel |> |Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:10 PM |> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |> |Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations |> | |> | |> |While working on the IIOP module, I have used an "IIOP server |> |configuration" that turns IIOP into the default. |> | |> |Let me put it more clearly: by default, EJBs are deployed in a |> |JRMP container. If I want an EJB to be deployed in an IIOP container, |> |I must add to its jboss.xml file an element like |> | |> |<configuration-name>IIOP Stateless SessionBean</configuration-name> |> | |> |To avoid doing this for many EJBs, I created a special server |> |configuration. This configuration has a modified standardjboss.xml, |> |in which IIOP container configurations have "standard" |> |container-names: "Standard Stateless SessionBean", and so on. |> |JRMP container configurations have "non-standard" container-names: |> |"JRMP Stateless SessionBean", and so on. |> | |> |This simple trick spared me the trouble of having almost identical |> |EJB jars (the only difference being a configuration-name element in |> |jboss.xml) to deploy in JRMP and in IIOP containers. If I start JBoss |> |with plain 'run.sh', my EJBs are deployed in a JRMP container. If I |> |start it with 'run.sh -c=iiop', the same EJBs are deployed in an IIOP |> |container. |> | |> |I was wondering if this setting would be useful for others, then had |> |an idea... Wouldn't it be nice to have both configurations active at |> |once? I mean: if one could have two different deploy directories |> |simultaneously handled by the server, by saying something like |> | |> | run.sh -c default -c iiop |> | |> |Want your EJB deployed in a JRMP container? Drop it in default/deploy... |> |Want it deployed in an IIOP container? Drop it in iiop/deploy... |> | |> |Of course, the configuration-name entry in the EJB's jboss.xml (if |> |present) would still override the server configuration. |> | |> |Am I too far off? Does this make any sense? Would this idea be |> |useful for other (JBoss.net) containers? |> | |> |Best, |> | |> |Francisco |> | _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
