[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: The mad, mad world of Remoting requirements

[trustin]

anonymous wrote : Web Services (if I understand correctly) wants to be able to use Remoting like a URLConnection. In other words, open an HTTP connection or JMS session (which one depends on the URI scheme) and shove SOAP through, and (presumably) it will interoperate with whatever is on the other side without the Web Services implementation having to know what protocol is 'really' being used. And on the receiving side, it would be able to accept requests/messages from arbitrary peers (in other words, possibly not running Remoting). In addition, using HTTP should provide a level of abstraction above the HTTP client or server, such that there is no dependency on any specific implementation library.

IIRC, Web Services team is using their own marshaller and unmarshaller.  If Remoting 3 is going to retain the pluggability of marshallers and unmarshallers, I think it's fully up to the WS team to provide interoperability or not using Remoting.  Our primary concern is of course not to provide interoperability between various parties (that's what WS is for), but we can still provide an extension point as we did in Remoting 2.  I agree with you in that it's of dubious value though.  Is there any reason for WS team to use Remoting to call other Web services?  There are many other WS client libraries.  I am very curious.

Providing various transports and extension points might make a lot of sense only if a user wants to switch from one transport to the other (e.g. JMS -> FTP).  Any advanced configuration could be specified via a configuration file or in a programmatic way via Microcontainer.  However, Remoting won't exploit the full features of the underlying transport.  However once again, it could be very beneficial for certain users who don't want to use advanced features of the underlying transport (e.g. transaction).

So, I generally agree with David, and also believe we can keep focusing on providing high-level API rather than on interoperability between various parties, while providing an extension point for implementing the interoperability by users themselves (not by us).

WDYT?  Am I getting things correctly? :)





View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4099812#4099812

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4099812