January 2009 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: HTTP Tunnel subproject

by trustin

"david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : I see, so you're saying that it would be a generalized tunnel for any socket protocol? That could be useful for Remoting and for other things as well. Exactly. :-) "david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : This does imply that we (again) need to discuss the direction to go with HTTP as a Remoting transport - should it be a separate mapping, or just be a tunnelling platform for socket-based protocols, or both, and why? That's a good question I missed out. I think it depends on whether we need to interoperate with other HTTP client module. If we don't, tunnelling is the easiest way to get HTTP support for Remoting IMHO. If we want to allow others write an HTTP-based client implementation, then we do need a well defined separate mapping. My opinion is that users will not bother with writing an HTTP client by themselves. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4202008#4202008 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4202008

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: HTTP Tunnel subproject

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

I see, so you're saying that it would be a generalized tunnel for any socket protocol? That could be useful for Remoting and for other things as well. This does imply that we (again) need to discuss the direction to go with HTTP as a Remoting transport - should it be a separate mapping, or just be a tunnelling platform for socket-based protocols, or both, and why? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4202007#4202007 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4202007

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: HTTP Tunnel subproject

by trustin

Considering that XNIO transport will also be a part of Netty, I think the HTTP tunnel should work just fine with XNIO pipe and socket transport as well as Netty's built-in transports. (i.e. the HTTP client transport should be a meta-transport of other transports). Please let me know if you have other frameworks in mind so that I can take account into. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4202000#4202000 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4202000

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Incompatible change to JBossASKernel

by ALRubinger

Here's what's been done: * Reverted the changes made to JBossASKernel to put it back to state used in AS 5.0.0.GA (Branch_5_x only) http://fisheye.jboss.org/changelog/JBossAS/?cs=82891 * Made ServiceContainer emulate the stuff I'd previously removed from JBossASKernel http://fisheye.jboss.org/changelog/JBossAS/?cs=82890 So Plugin should again be compatible w/ JBossAS 5.0.0.GA. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201999#4201999 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201999

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: HTTP Tunnel subproject

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

It looks like an interesting idea at least. But when it comes time to implement the HTTP transport for Remoting, I think the most important thing we can do is to define exactly how to best map request to the HTTP protocol, so that we can consistently implement the protocol between the various frameworks that we plan to support. Once we have done that, the choice of tool is going to come down to what works best to implement that mapping. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201998#4201998 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201998

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - HTTP Tunnel subproject

by trustin

Andy Taylor of JBM team will be working on the following issue: * https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/NETTY-109 I believe we will also be able to benefit from this if implemented generic enough (that's the purpose.) Please feel free to jump in and leave comments to mention what's required on the JBREM side. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201997#4201997 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201997

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: servlet transport implementation

by trustin

I've created JIRA issues which correspond to the tasks mentioned here: * https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/NETTY-108 * https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/NETTY-109 Please put watches on them and leave comments there to continue the discussion. All comments will be forwarded to netty-dev(a)lists.jboss.org. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201996#4201996 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201996

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Generated JNI header files in SVN

by trustin

That was fast. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201993#4201993 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201993

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: servlet transport implementation

by trustin

"ataylor" wrote : Trustin, Ive created a branch https://svn.jboss.org/repos/netty/branches/invm/. I've done a quick and rough proof of concept for an implementation of Channel and ChannelFactory that the servlet transport will use. Theres an InvmExample that you can run. | | Its a bit untidy and theres still a bit missing but it should give you an indication of how it shoud work. Let me know your thoughts? OK. Let me review it and get back to you. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201987#4201987 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201987

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: servlet transport implementation

by trustin

"timfox" wrote : "trustin" wrote : | | I understood how it works, but out of curiosity, why does the Servlet need to talk to JBM via Netty? Isn't it just enough for the Servlet to talk to JBM directly? Perhaps I am missing out something. | | | The idea, is it's a *generic* Netty proxy over HTTP, not something specific to JBM. Therefore it can't talk to JBM directly or it would be limited to use only with JBM, and couldn't live in the Netty source tree. Now I got the point. Thanks for clarification! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4201986#4201986 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4201986

17 years, 2 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 January 2009