This is a very nice idea!!!
Claudio
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marc fleury [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:09 PM
> To: David Jencks; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
> |2. I thought marc had an idea of separating the container and interceptor
> |stack from the invoker, so many invokers could use the same
> |container/stack/ejb. I think this is a more promising way to go -- you
> can
> |say "all my ejbs should be invokable from JRMP and IIOP" or one or the
> |other individually.
> |
> |I may have missed something here, let me know.
>
>
> It is not just an idea, this is implemented for the past 5 months or so,
> it
> is one of those new JBoss 3.0 powerful features that we need to clearly
> document.
>
> marcf
>
> |
> |david jencks
> |
> |
> |On 2002.03.20 10:08:48 -0500 Francisco Reverbel wrote:
> |> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jason Dillon wrote:
> |>
> |> > Useful, yes... practical... probably not. With the current system
> |> > configuration this would be difficult to implement and still provide
> a
> |> > consistent view of the basic configuration attributes.
> |>
> |> I don't see this very clearly... Wouldn't be mostly a matter of setting
> |> up more than one MainDeployer, each seeing a different
> standardjboss.xml
> |> resource?
> |>
> |> > It seems like you want to provide an easy way to enable/disable jrmp
> &
> |> > iiop... it might be better to define some system properties to
> control
> |> > this. Perhaps then use a switchable interceptor to handle the
> |> > invocation layer? This way there is only one set of standard
> |> > configurations which are both rmi and iiop capable depending on the
> |> > value of some set of properties.
> |>
> |> Well, multiple server configurations are not strictly necessary.
> |> They could be convenient in some situations, just that.
> |>
> |> JBoss already provides ways to switch between JRMP & IIOP. Right now
> you
> |> can pick one of the following options:
> |>
> |> 1) change jboss.xml within your EJB jars, or
> |>
> |> 2) (if you do not want to change your EJB jars)
> |> use a separate JBoss server, whose configuration renders
> unnecessary
> |> any changes the jboss.xml files in your EJB jars.
> |>
> |> My suggestion aimed at avoiding both the need for changes in your EJB
> |> jars
> |> and the need for a separate JBoss server. You "switchable interceptor"
> |> hint
> |> sounds interesting, but where the "switch control" would be? If it
> would
> |> be
> |> in the jboss.xml files within your EJB jars, then it buys us nothing.
> |>
> |> > Or something... I don't know, but I would not like to see the system
> |> > augmented to support multipule configurations as you show in your
> |> example.
> |>
> |> I will not try to push my idea on you, as I really do not know how
> useful
> |> it
> |> would be in real scenarios.
> |>
> |> Best,
> |>
> |> Francisco
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> _______________________________________________
> |> 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
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
