On 09/22/2011 08:59 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:

On 09/22/2011 03:21 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:

On 09/22/2011 03:52 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:

On 09/22/2011 07:00 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:

Client JNDI Revisited!

----------------------

Based on feedback here and in IRC, we're changing our approach to

client

EJB thus:

A new JNDI "scheme" will be introduced called "ejb". Lookups into this

scheme following a naming convention will yield remote EJB proxies

directly. If the interface is not stateful, then the proxy is

immediately available without a server round-trip.

The format for "ejb" scheme names is like this (square brackets are not

literal; they indicate that the enclosed section is optional):

"ejb:appname/modulename/[distinctname/]beanname!interface[?stateful]"

The "appname", "modulename", and "distinctname" are the identifying

names of the EJB deployment. "beanname" is the EJB-spec name of the

EJB. "interface" is the Java type name of the interface being returned.

The "?stateful" query parameter indicates that a session should be

initiated on lookup.

Since it is likely that users will erroneously use "?stateful" on a

stateful home interface (which is itself stateless), the lookup code

will detect whether the interface extends EJBHome before attempting to

initiate session, and if found will instead emit a warning.

Both a SLSB and a SFSB can have an EJBHome interface for their remote

home view. So I don't see how this can play a role in determining the

session characteristic.

In fact a call to a home view is always session-less, both for SLSB and

SFSB. The proxy returned by the create method represents the possible

session.

That's what I said. EJBHome are always stateless. Therefore if

?stateful is given for an EJBHome, it is ignored and a warning is issued.

That implies that home.create() will always go round trip. Isn't that

what we want to prevent for SLSB?

Yeah I wanted to prevent that but given that (a) it's considerable added
complexity (we'd need another proxy type) and (b) it's one edge case of
EJB2-style stuff that hopefully is less-used, it doesn't really seem
worth the trouble.

This gives us configuration-free JNDI. Also, it gives us a JNDI name

scheme we can use in server-side EJB references as a lookup-name which

can create dependency-free injections of remote EJBs that may not be

present on the current system. And it's also nice in that it doesn't

interfere with "java:" spec lookups at all.

This should address all the issues raised with client JNDI thus far.

Binding the URL ObjectFactory to java:something would result in exactly

the same functionality. We can still offer this choice to users.

Except that "java:" belongs to EE, and this is very much non-spec. I

don't think this type of functionality belongs in "java:" under any

circumstances.

In that case we should also refactor java:jboss.

The reason I don't feel "java:jboss" applies the same way as "ejb:" is
that (a) it is very unlikely to conflict, given that "jboss" is
basically trademarked, and (b) it behaves very similarly to other
"java:" namespaces.


--
- DML
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev