TECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad
> In this case the client side method to tx support map uses MethodHash
> values as keys since the Methods themselves are not serializable. Seems to
> me that we should put the MethodHa
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad
>
>
> In this case the client side method to tx support map uses MethodHash
> values as keys since the Methods themselves are not serializable.
> Seems to
> me that we should put the MethodHash v
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jboss-Dev"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:31 PM
> Subject: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor
nless it is hidden someplace.
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: David Jencks
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterc
g a tm.resume from
> the transaction that is
> past across the wire. Is this code broken?
>
> Bill
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:51 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: David Jencks
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad AND broken?
>
>
> Ok, I'm looking at the code further and I'm pretty confused on how a
> Transaction get propagated across the wire now. Can you explain? I don't
>
> Actually the code is much more readable. I guess my
> only concern now is
> non-java/jboss clients. And, do we care?
>
Non java code will have a seperate server-side invoker
and it should deal with the TX stuff as best it can.
In otherwords, do it the old way if it works better
for corba.
>
--Original Message-
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad
>
>
> Another thing David,
>
> I don't see you always stuffing th
avid Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jboss-Dev"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad
> What if you don't have java on the client side? What if you're CORBA with
> OTS? You're maki
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
> Burke
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On B
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; David Jencks
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is bad
>
>
> --- Bill B
--- Bill Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if you don't have java on the client side?
> What if you're CORBA with
> OTS? You're making it harder for Non-JBoss/Java
> clients to integrated with
> us. I think this split should be undone.
>
How des OTS work? The corba guys tackled the DTM
What if you don't have java on the client side? What if you're CORBA with
OTS? You're making it harder for Non-JBoss/Java clients to integrated with
us. I think this split should be undone.
BTW, why the split besides code readability? Is the DTM dependent on this
at all? Is the TM even access
13 matches
Mail list logo
