[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of POJO Server] - Re: JRMPProxyFactory equivalent for POJO Services

[bstansberry@jboss.com]

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | bstansberry at jboss.com" wrote : 
  |   | If the "factory" element supported a nested "bean" element it would be a bit cleaner.
  |   | 
  | 
  | Just to be sure I understand, you're talking about a microcontainer feature, right, not something I should do with RemotingProxyFactory?

Yep. Just a minor thing. Instead of this:


  | <bean name="SampleTargetProxyFactory" class="org.jboss.aspects.remoting.RemotingProxyFactory">
  | 
  |       ......
  | 
  |    </bean>
  | 
  |    <bean class="org.jboss.aspects.remoting.test.proxy.SampleInterface1">
  | 
  |     	     <annotation>
  | @org.jboss.aop.microcontainer.aspects.jndi.JndiBinding(name="proxyTestJNDI")
  |              </annotation>
  | 
  |       <constructor factoryMethod="getProxy">
  |            <factory bean="SampleTargetProxyFactory"/>
  |       </constructor>
  | 
  |    </bean>
  | 

You'd nest the factory bean:


  |    <bean class="org.jboss.aspects.remoting.test.proxy.SampleInterface1">
  | 
  |     	     <annotation>
  | @org.jboss.aop.microcontainer.aspects.jndi.JndiBinding(name="proxyTestJNDI")
  |              </annotation>
  | 
  |       <constructor factoryMethod="getProxy">
  |            <factory>
  |               <bean class="org.jboss.aspects.remoting.RemotingProxyFactory">
  | 
  |                    ......
  | 
  |                </bean>
  |            </factory>
  |       </constructor>
  | 
  |    </bean>
  | 

The nesting just reduces the visibility of the factory vs. the proxy, plus saves having to name the factory bean.

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | I think the use of the factory element here is also pretty cool.  The one thing that strikes me is that the bean with the factory element is defined with a single interface class, even though the proxy will, in fact, implement two interfaces.  I certainly don't know the microcontainer internals, but superficially it seems like a bean with a factory element could live without a class attribute, since it could be derived from the factory method's return type.

The class attribute is optional in the schema; I don't know if omitting it would work. I believe in the past it was required, but the MC guys are improving stuff all the time. 

You could also use org.jboss.aop.proxy.Proxy instead of the interface. In fact you might have to, since that's the return type from the factory method. I used the interface because that's the idiom I'd used previously with a factory bean for creating a JBoss Cache instance.  But the return type on their factory was the interface org.jboss.cache.Cache.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166541#4166541

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166541