I subject has arisen in JBAS-3151 "Convert HA-JNDI stubs to Remoting" that Brian has suggested deserves some discussion. I've started a forum thread (http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266436#...), but here's the teaser: *"ron" wrote:* ... Is there anything wrong with HARMIClient and HARMIServer, other than the fact that they depend on RMI? --- *"brian" wrote:* Not particularly, no. I think the main issues are 1) we want to unify as much as possible on a single remote invocation mechanism 2) get rid of myriad sockets opened by different services. I suppose the latter goes beyond the description of this JIRA as it involve converting HANamingService to use a Remoting connector instead of directly listening on port 1101. *"ron" wrote:* It looks like there are two kinds of Naming listeners: 1. the "bootstrap" listeners in org.jnp.server.Main and org.jboss.ha.jndi.HANamingService, and 2. the actual service listeners: org.jnp.server.NamingServer and org.jboss.ha.framework.server.HARMIServerImpl So, we'd like to replace them all with handlers on a single Remoting connector (or, actually, the Remoting 3 version of of handlers and connectors). *"brian" wrote:* The bootstrap listener part probably bears discussion on the jboss-dev list since it much more directly impacts stuff like end-user configuration (i.e. jndi.properties or other ways of setting the properties passed to new InitialContext()). The service listeners are more straightforward. Discuss? -Ron _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

So ATTCRMVP (tm) would be the descendant of org.jboss.aspects.remoting.AOPRemotingInvocationHandler / org.jboss.aop.Dispatcher ? David M. Lloyd wrote: > One observation that's neither here nor there - ALR has been kicking > around a "back to basics" simple invocation mechanism that should work > for all Things That Call Remote Methods Via a Proxy (tm), for EJB3 and > whatever else it may apply to, which opens the possibility to come up > with a standard Remoting 3 invocation service of some sort. > > It looks pretty good to me so far. It lives here: > http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/common/invokablecontainer/trunk/api/ > > Granted realistically this is going to apply more to what we stick > *in* JNDI, than how JNDI is itself implemented (which, afaict, -could- > just be a straight-up Remoting 3 service type, though that'd be a more > significant departure from the current implementation from what I > understand of it, than sticking with something more RMI-like). > > - DML > > On 11/18/2009 07:42 PM, Ron Sigal wrote: > >> I subject has arisen in JBAS-3151 "Convert HA-JNDI stubs to Remoting" >> that Brian has suggested deserves some discussion. I've started a forum >> thread >> (http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266436#...), >> >> but here's the teaser: >> >> >> *"ron" wrote:* >> >> ... >> Is there anything wrong with HARMIClient and HARMIServer, other than the >> fact that they depend on RMI? >> --- >> >> >> >> *"brian" wrote:* >> >> Not particularly, no. I think the main issues are 1) we want to unify as >> much as possible on a single remote invocation mechanism 2) get rid of >> myriad sockets opened by different services. I suppose the latter goes >> beyond the description of this JIRA as it involve converting >> HANamingService to use a Remoting connector instead of directly >> listening on port 1101. >> >> >> >> *"ron" wrote:* >> >> It looks like there are two kinds of Naming listeners: >> >> 1. the "bootstrap" listeners in org.jnp.server.Main and >> org.jboss.ha.jndi.HANamingService, and >> >> 2. the actual service listeners: org.jnp.server.NamingServer and >> org.jboss.ha.framework.server.HARMIServerImpl >> >> So, we'd like to replace them all with handlers on a single Remoting >> connector (or, actually, the Remoting 3 version of of handlers and >> connectors). >> >> >> >> *"brian" wrote:* >> >> The bootstrap listener part probably bears discussion on the jboss-dev >> list since it much more directly impacts stuff like end-user >> configuration (i.e. jndi.properties or other ways of setting the >> properties passed to new InitialContext()). The service listeners are >> more straightforward. >> >> >> >> Discuss? >> >> -Ron >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

I added David's and Carlo's comments to the thread Ron had started on this topic. http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266823 Carlo de Wolf wrote: > Whether it will be ATTCTMVP (tm) or something else ( for example > http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/ejb3/trunk/remoting2/src/... > ) remains to be seen. I like > http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/common/invokablecontainer/trunk/api/src/ma... > with the exception that target is not a first class citizen. > > AOPRemotingInvocationHandler& Dispatcher definitely need to go. The > first, because remoting is not an aspect, the second because it's a > singleton with weird SPI ( > http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/JBossAS/trunk/ejb3/src/main/org/jboss/ejb... > ). > > Now if you put JNDI, Remoting and proxies in one sentence one > requirement is the most important: > - all proxies must be transport unaware. > > So if I bind an EJB into JNDI it doesn't matter whether I lookup through > an HTTP(S), IIOP or whatever to get a proxy tied to the connection with > which I'm communicating with AS. > The same goes for clustering, that is just a virtual connection to a > virtual host (/ real cluster). > > Carlo > > On 11/19/2009 03:54 AM, Ron Sigal wrote: > >> So ATTCRMVP (tm) would be the descendant of >> org.jboss.aspects.remoting.AOPRemotingInvocationHandler / >> org.jboss.aop.Dispatcher ? >> >> David M. Lloyd wrote: >> >> >>> One observation that's neither here nor there - ALR has been kicking >>> around a "back to basics" simple invocation mechanism that should work >>> for all Things That Call Remote Methods Via a Proxy (tm), for EJB3 and >>> whatever else it may apply to, which opens the possibility to come up >>> with a standard Remoting 3 invocation service of some sort. >>> >>> It looks pretty good to me so far. It lives here: >>> http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/common/invokablecontainer/trunk/api/ >>> >>> Granted realistically this is going to apply more to what we stick >>> *in* JNDI, than how JNDI is itself implemented (which, afaict, -could- >>> just be a straight-up Remoting 3 service type, though that'd be a more >>> significant departure from the current implementation from what I >>> understand of it, than sticking with something more RMI-like). >>> >>> - DML >>> >>> On 11/18/2009 07:42 PM, Ron Sigal wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I subject has arisen in JBAS-3151 "Convert HA-JNDI stubs to Remoting" >>>> that Brian has suggested deserves some discussion. I've started a forum >>>> thread >>>> (http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266436#...), >>>> >>>> but here's the teaser: >>>> >>>> >>>> *"ron" wrote:* >>>> >>>> ... >>>> Is there anything wrong with HARMIClient and HARMIServer, other than the >>>> fact that they depend on RMI? >>>> --- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *"brian" wrote:* >>>> >>>> Not particularly, no. I think the main issues are 1) we want to unify as >>>> much as possible on a single remote invocation mechanism 2) get rid of >>>> myriad sockets opened by different services. I suppose the latter goes >>>> beyond the description of this JIRA as it involve converting >>>> HANamingService to use a Remoting connector instead of directly >>>> listening on port 1101. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *"ron" wrote:* >>>> >>>> It looks like there are two kinds of Naming listeners: >>>> >>>> 1. the "bootstrap" listeners in org.jnp.server.Main and >>>> org.jboss.ha.jndi.HANamingService, and >>>> >>>> 2. the actual service listeners: org.jnp.server.NamingServer and >>>> org.jboss.ha.framework.server.HARMIServerImpl >>>> >>>> So, we'd like to replace them all with handlers on a single Remoting >>>> connector (or, actually, the Remoting 3 version of of handlers and >>>> connectors). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *"brian" wrote:* >>>> >>>> The bootstrap listener part probably bears discussion on the jboss-dev >>>> list since it much more directly impacts stuff like end-user >>>> configuration (i.e. jndi.properties or other ways of setting the >>>> properties passed to new InitialContext()). The service listeners are >>>> more straightforward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Discuss? >>>> >>>> -Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development