Are there any unit tests you've written ? galder(a)jboss.org wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I'm not sure what method Bela is talking about. The only thing I suggested is having some kind of scope getter method that allows updating the handlers map. > > Paul, let me know when you've committed this stuff and I'll try it out. I'm also investigating Bela's suggestion of having a separate cache. > > Cheers, > > ----- "Paul Ferraro" <paul.ferraro(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > >> Galder, >> >> To which method is Bela referring? >> >> Otherwise, I'm ready to check in the org.jgroups.blocks.mux package. >> There is a small change required in >> MessageDispatcher.setChannel(...): >> >> channel.setUpHandler(prot_adapter); >> >> needs to be replaced by: >> >> if (channel.getUpHandler() == null) >> channel.setUpHandler(prot_adapter); >> >> This is need to prevent each new RpcDispatcher/MessageDispatcher from >> overwriting the preexisting multiplexing UpHandler. >> I can't envision this breaking any existing use case, but I wanted to >> verify before committing. >> >> So, to review, usage will now look like: >> >> Channel c = new JChannel(...); >> >> // RpcDispatcher d = new RpcDispatcher(c, null, null, target); >> // c.setUpHandler(new MuxUpHandler(d.getProtocolAdapter()); >> >> c.setUpHandler(new MuxUpHandler()); >> >> RpcDispatcher d1 = new MuxRpcDispatcher((short) 1, c, null, null, >> target); >> RpcDispatcher d1 = new MuxRpcDispatcher((short) 2, c, null, null, >> target); >> >> c.connect(...); >> >> Paul >> >> On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 13:16 +0200, Bela Ban wrote: >> >>> I understand all of the new code is in the new package >>> org.jgroups.blocks.scope. If that's the case, I suggest add and >>> >> commit >> >>> your changes so you can experiment with them. >>> >>> I also recall Galder needed to change some method from private to >>> protected, why don't you go ahead and do this too ? >>> >> <snip> >> -- Bela Ban Lead JGroups / JBoss Clustering team JBoss - a division of Red Hat

Hi Paul, I'm not sure what method Bela is talking about. The only thing I suggested is having some kind of scope getter method that allows updating the handlers map. Paul, let me know when you've committed this stuff and I'll try it out. I'm also investigating Bela's suggestion of having a separate cache. Cheers, ----- "Paul Ferraro" <paul.ferraro(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Galder, > > To which method is Bela referring? > > Otherwise, I'm ready to check in the org.jgroups.blocks.mux package. > There is a small change required in > MessageDispatcher.setChannel(...): > > channel.setUpHandler(prot_adapter); > > needs to be replaced by: > > if (channel.getUpHandler() == null) > channel.setUpHandler(prot_adapter); > > This is need to prevent each new RpcDispatcher/MessageDispatcher from > overwriting the preexisting multiplexing UpHandler. > I can't envision this breaking any existing use case, but I wanted to > verify before committing. > > So, to review, usage will now look like: > > Channel c = new JChannel(...); > > // RpcDispatcher d = new RpcDispatcher(c, null, null, target); > // c.setUpHandler(new MuxUpHandler(d.getProtocolAdapter()); > > c.setUpHandler(new MuxUpHandler()); > > RpcDispatcher d1 = new MuxRpcDispatcher((short) 1, c, null, null, > target); > RpcDispatcher d1 = new MuxRpcDispatcher((short) 2, c, null, null, > target); > > c.connect(...); > > Paul > > On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 13:16 +0200, Bela Ban wrote: > > I understand all of the new code is in the new package > > org.jgroups.blocks.scope. If that's the case, I suggest add and > commit > > your changes so you can experiment with them. > > > > I also recall Galder needed to change some method from private to > > protected, why don't you go ahead and do this too ? > <snip>