> > What you implemented is fine. My only problem with it is that I > think it is more logical to let the server decide if it needs the > tx, and that I think the registration callback could be avoided > (with minimal redundant client side bookkeeping) even if the > decision is made on the server side. > > I got the impression that this implementation would also be used > in the other invokers, and that made me worry about CORBA > interoperability. If this approach will not be used with the IIOP > invoker, I have no problem with it. >
Yes this was my exact worry and still is. That we'll have to have a different set of interceptors on the server side for different transports. This is unexceptable because we want each EJB to be able to listen to and service calls from different transports at the same time. David, I'm not suggesting to redesign your code, but is the design flexible enough so that we could switch to a server-side based design? Iteration is a fine thing.... Bill ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
