On 2003.03.09 15:20 Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> David
> > Jencks
> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:23 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
> Jencks
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
>
>
> >
> &g
The AOP case is even more similar to the DP if you
think of AOP like this:
If the AOP intrumented methods are: <
Interceptors are: []
The original (but renamed) object methods are: (
The object is: O
An AOP stack then is: <[](O
Which is almost the same as the DP case: |[](O
Regards,
Hiram
> If
>
> > 5. multiple interceptor chains per InvocationFactory, e.g. each method
> > gets a separate interceptor chain. (Idea from current mbean interceptor
> > implementation)
> >
>
> Do we really need per method interceptor chains? We did not need them to
> implement EJBs.
>
After working with
> It makes some interceptors less complex to implement. It
> makes sense at service interception where we may have a
> separation between attributes/operations. Say I want to
> persist 2 out of 3 attributes I'm changing. Operations don't
> need the persistence interceptor, nor do all the attrib
> , #2, and #3a if I can focus solely on this for 5 days with
> no interuptions.
OK I will guarantee the no interuptions. Get it fucking done and you
will put us all on top of the middleware world. JNDI is the simplest
test case as Scott pointed and something I wanted see done in a long
time
m
f Of Bill Burke
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
>
>
> The AOP framework really right now is only for POJO
> interception. I do have the beginnings of DynamicProxies
> though
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Bill Burke wrote:
> >
> > 1. Source located in neutral territory, namely the common module.
ok
> >
> > 2. Sequence of interceptors determined by (iterator in) invocation object.
This could be a modifiable iterator at some point. This allows the
interceptor stack to be modifie
03 3:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
>
>
> And I'm saying I want a prototype that demonstrates how the
> various interceptor
> offerings work in the context of a real service. Part of the
> testsuite
ROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
> >
> >
> > On 2003.03.02 16:16 Nathan Phelps wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > With what, specifically?
> >
> > As I
MAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
> On 2003.03.02 16:16 Nathan Phelps wrote:
> >
> > I agree.
> With w
> -Original Message-
> From: David Jencks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide int
anks
david jencks
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nathan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Scott M Stark
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wi
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Nathan Phelps
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 4:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
>
>
>
> I agree. As I begin the development of JMS/JBoss 4.0,
advertised.
Thanks,
Nathan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott M Stark
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 1:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
Woa, before we have a full fledged i
Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
tt Stark
> Chief Technology Officer
> JBoss Group, LLC
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:28 AM
> Subject: [JBoss-de
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:28 AM
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Proposal for jboss-wide interceptor framework
> (resending, first attempt seems to have disappeared)
>
> I've committed a proposal for a jboss-wide interceptor fr
I've committed a proposal for a jboss-wide interceptor framework in the
common module under org.jboss.interception. This is based on Bill's aop
interceptor framework. It compiles but is untested. Several more or less
needed features are not yet implemented, such as a convenient way to
supply a
(resending, first attempt seems to have disappeared)
I've committed a proposal for a jboss-wide interceptor framework in the
common module under org.jboss.interception. This is based on Bill's aop
interceptor framework. It compiles but is untested. Several more or less
needed features are not y
20 matches
Mail list logo
