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
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 values in the invocation to start
with.
david
On 2003.02.12 17:57 Scott M Stark wrote:
> > Another problem I see
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
> Another problem I see is that the TxMethod map is required on the client
> side as well. Makes proxies even more heavy and what do you do about a hot
> deploy?
The hot deploy is a general issue with proxies. Whether or not this works depends
on the transport endpoint. RMI/JRMP proxies do not wo
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
