Francisco Reverbel wrote:
>
>>Isn't Borland dead yet? They're still selling their CORBA implementation?
>>I thought Iona had cornered the market. The commercial market that is.
>>
>
> Yes, they are selling it. What I don't know is whether there is anybody
> buying it or not... :-)
>
> Not kid
Francisco Reverbel wrote:
>
>>Isn't Borland dead yet? They're still selling their CORBA implementation?
>>I thought Iona had cornered the market. The commercial market that is.
>
>
> Yes, they are selling it. What I don't know is whether there is anybody
> buying it or not... :-)
>
> Not kid
|The OMG-blessed term is "IOR profile". There is also a thing called "IIOP
|context", which is a per-message stuff. An IIOP request to some target IOR
|carries some of the data stuffed into the target IOR (the object key,
|which includes the object id field), plus zero or more IIOP contexts (data
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
> Oh yes! Now I remember. IOR Profiles, and service contexts. It's been
> awhile (2 years).
Service contexts, right! Not "IIOP contexts", as I said...
Now you are the one that remembers the official names.
> > So the JMX name must go within the object
> -Original Message-
> From: Francisco Reverbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:44 PM
> To: Bill Burke
> Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
>
> On Wed, 20
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
> > Yes, it is fully portable. I will not use an IOR context, will use the
> > IOR object id instead.
> >
>
> So, you can't add abitrary IOR contexts?
The OMG-blessed term is "IOR profile". There is also a thing called "IIOP
context", which is a per-messag
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: Bill Burke
> Cc: Francisco Reverbel; marc fleury;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
>
> >
>
>
>This is already the case, Jason. Invokers are configured as an MBean.
>standardjboss.xml binds the ProxyFactory to the container. Implicitly, a
>default invoker is bound to the container. You can bind your own invoker to
>the container by specifying or with an MBean
>name in jboss.xml.
>
0, 2002 4:40 PM
> To: Francisco Reverbel
> Cc: marc fleury; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
>
> Perhaps the invoker configuration should be seperate and parrallel to
> the container configuration?
>
> --jason
>
>
> Franc
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Francisco Reverbel
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:11 PM
> To: Bill Burke
> Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multip
] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|
|
|> -Original Message-
|> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|> Francisco Reverbel
|> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:11 PM
|> To: Bill Burke
|> Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|>
Perhaps the invoker configuration should be seperate and parrallel to
the container configuration?
--jason
Francisco Reverbel wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, marc fleury wrote:
>
>>we already support the multiple configuration thing by passing the directory
>>as an argument
>>
>
>Yes
Hello Bill,
> > From: Francisco Reverbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> > Must embed the container's JMX name into my IORs and route IIOP
> > invocations through the MBean server. This has been in my todo
> > list for quite a while...
> >
>
> Is this portable? Can other orbs just ignore t
> 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).
>
To clarify. Th
| 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).
that's the first thi
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
>
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.
> -Original Message-
> From: Francisco Reverbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: Bill Burke
> Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
>
> You
|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 indivi
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
--
> > From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:55 AM
> > To: Bill Burke; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
> >
> >
> > oh good point, but that doesn't requ
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:55 AM
> To: Bill Burke; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
>
> oh good point, but that doesn't require "top level"
> configuration, just drop
>
|Just want to make it clear that we already have a "mixed mode" in some
|sense. Right now you can deploy an EJB jar into an JRMP container and
|another one into an IIOP container. Both at the same time and on the
|same running server.
|
|But the EJB jars must be different, of course!
no no no, th
Hi Marc,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, marc fleury wrote:
> we already support the multiple configuration thing by passing the directory
> as an argument
Yes, but you can specify only one configuration at a time.
> run jetty runs with the jetty configuration
> run tomcat runs with the tomcat conf
>
>
cott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|In other words, one EJB can be accessible through IIOP, RMI, SOAP, XML-RPC
|all at the same time. This is the future. Multiple MBean
|invokers, 1 MBean
|as per Marc's vision.
|
|Bill
|
|> -O
cott
> M Stark
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
>
>
> We will support multiple container invokers such that any
> number of access protocols are available so being able to
> run multiple
We will support multiple container invokers such that any
number of access protocols are available so being able to
run multiple configurations is not how this should be done.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Me
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
Francisco
we already support the multiple configuration thing by passing the directory
as an argument
run jetty runs with the jetty configuration
run tomcat runs with the tomcat conf
what we change are the jboss.jcml (in 2.4) and the standardjboss.xml, this
is what they are they for (congrats o
>
>
>I was wondering if this setting would be useful for others, then had
>an idea... Wouldn't it be nice to have both configurations active at
>once? I mean: if one could have two different deploy directories
>simultaneously handled by the server, by saying something like
>
>run.sh -c defaul
30 matches
Mail list logo
