July 2008 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: R3 transports to implement

by trustin

Communication between R3 client and R3 service will not have such a flaw. But we need to be backward-compatible with R2 client, too. The R2 protocol flaw I know of is that it creates a connection per request. R2 provides a workaround via connection pooling, which reuses a connection for more than one request and R3 will reuse a connection for more than one request by default. Please let me know if there's more protocol flaw I don't know. R3 is still open for a change. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166875#4166875 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166875

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: How does version.properties get copied

by ataylor

<echo message="messaging.version.versionName=${messaging.version.name}${line.separator}messaging.version.majorVersion=${messaging.version.major}${line.separator}messaging.version.minorVersion=${messaging.version.minor}${line.separator}messaging.version.microVersion=${messaging.version.micro}${line.separator}messaging.version.incrementingVersion=${messaging.version.incrementing}${line.separator}messaging.version.versionSuffix=${messaging.version.suffix}${line.separator}" | file="${build.classes.dir}/version.properties"/> View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166874#4166874 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166874

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: How does version.properties get copied

by ataylor

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166868#4166868 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166868

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: How does version.properties get copied

by ataylor

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166867#4166867 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166867

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Web Services] - Re: Proxy Object Caching

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

There's no webservice proxy pooling support. You can use proxy as singleton. Please take a look to here to see which webservice artifacts are thread safe. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166864#4166864 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166864

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: R3 transports to implement

by timfox

Are you going to provide a R3 socket transport that doesn't try to copy the R2 socket transport? IMHO the R2 socket protocol suffered from fundamental design flaws and trying to copy them in R3 means copying those flaws too... ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166860#4166860 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166860

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Streaming in R3

by trustin

IIUC, we create a new connection to pull data from a stream in R2 and close the connection when we reach to the end of the stream, right? If so, I think it might cause a problem when a user exchanges thousands of small stream objects because of too many TIME_WAIT state and the cost of creating and destroying a connection. We already have a plan to support multi-channel communication in R3, so I think we should use that facility unless the client is R2. WDYT? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166859#4166859 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166859

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: R3 transports to implement

by trustin

The socket and bisocket transport will run on XNIO / Netty. It's to make sure that R2 clients can talk to R3 services. It doesn't mean we are going to retain the old socket I/O code. Hence, the R2 socket transport is a subset of the new R3 transport and other R2 transports such as bisocket and RMI are rather small variation of the R3 transport. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166858#4166858 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166858

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: R3 transports to implement

by timfox

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here, but I am curious why R3 will include a socket and a bisocket transport. Aren't those superceded by XNIO/Mina/Netty3 ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166856#4166856 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166856

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: R3 transports to implement

by trustin

So.. the overall architecture could look like this: | +-----------------------------------------------------+ | R3: | XNIO-based protocol implementation (R2-compatible?) | | +---------------------+-------------------------------+ | XNIO: | SSH | Custom multichannel transport | | +---------------------+-------------------------------+ | I think we can make the XNIO-based protocol implementation look similar to that of Remoting 2 socket transport. As David explained in the IRC channel, we could simply retain the core classes which are serialized and deserialized in R2 and convert them to R3 classes and vice versa to implement R2 compatibility: | R2 client -> R3 endpoint -> R2Req-to-R3Req converter -> Request Listener -> .. | .. -> R3Res-to-R2Res converter -> R3 endpoint -> R2 client | In case of R3 connection, it's simpler: | R3 client -> R3 endpoint -> RequestListener -> R3 endpoint -> R3 client | Please let me know if there's any possible technical difficulties or flaws in implementing this. I might have completely misunderstood David's idea. :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166855#4166855 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166855

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums July 2008