[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: Remoting unmarshalling vs. class loaders

[scott.stark@jboss.org]

"david.lloyd at jboss.com" wrote : So as long as you keep your requests confined to a single classloader (on the receiving side) then things should work out.  I think that associating a service with its appropriate classloader would be the right thing to do there (the protocol handler would then choose the classloader based on the service being invoked).  Given the R3 design, which makes requests and client instances much more lightweight, mixing classloaders in requests would be an indication of improper service design - if you're doing that, you probably need multiple services (one for each aspect that lives in its own classloader).
  | 
Agreed, the target of the remoting invocation should have a distinct class loader that would be set as the request TCL. However, if there is a lazy or streaming facility that allows the marshalling to occur at the remoting layer and there is object replacement via replaceObject, proxy replacement, etc., the marshaller needs the handler TCL saved for the duration of the response. Is there a way the handler can associate that with the response object?


View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4169179#4169179

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4169179