On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Jencks wrote:
> 1. I think it would be 2 copies of maybe EJBDeployer or a metadata class. I
> guess you'd need 2 MainDeployers so each could send ejb-jars to the
> appropriate EJBDeployer.
>
> 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.
Yes, I agree. Marc's proposal (if I understood it correctly) is much more
interesting. You would have multiple invokers talking to the same container.
In my suggestion, if you dropped the same EJB jar in jrmp/deploy and in
iiop/deploy, two separate containers would be created, one with a JRMP
invoker and the other with an IIOP invoker.
Multiple invokers per container (Marc's stuff) is better, as it allows
us to enforce transaction semantics for concurrent invocations.
> I may have missed something here, let me know.
No you haven't. I was the one missing something.
For the sake of clarity (and to check if I got everything right this time),
here is a summary of what (I believe is) our current status:
1 - If you tweak with the jboss.xml files within your EJB jars, you can
use JRMP and IIOP at the same time on the same running server, but
not on the same container. This feature works on the RH version
in CVS, but will be superseded by the one below.
2 - Marc's code allows multiple invokers per container. The JRMP stuff
is all there, but there is still some work to be done to enable
multiple homes. There is also some work to be done on the IIOP stuff
(IIOP invocations are not going through JMX today).
Best,
Francisco
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
