Hmm, I'm not sure about this - this adds bloat to Infinispan, and we
shouldn't really care about how people share instances. However, it
would make peoples' lives easier and increase adoption. What do
others think?
On 16 Oct 2009, at 12:29, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
Hi,
Re:
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-153
Apart from testing itself, does it make sense to include the ability
of
binding to JNDI, using org.jboss.util.naming.NonSerializableFactory to
to bind a non-serializable object into a local JNDI context, within
Infinispan itself?
So, I'm thinking that we could have a <jndi name="xyz"/>
configuration
option both at the global level (for Cache Manager) and at the Cache
level. So,
- if <jndi/> was present in the global section, we'd bind CacheManager
to java:CacheManager
- if <jndi name="xyz"/> was present in the global section, we'd bind
CacheManager to java:xyz
- if <jndi/> was present in the cache section, we'd bind Cache to
java:<name-of-the-cache>
- if <jndi name="xyz"/> was present in the cache section, we'd bind
Cache to java:xyz
This should, in theory, ease JNDI binding in AS and other apps servers
without the need of extra code in those environments.
Thoughts? Brian, would you find this useful?
Cheers,
--
Galder ZamarreƱo
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org