[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of POJO Server] - Re: JBMICROCONT-288 - Invalid feature request and invalid pr

[adrian@jboss.org]

"wolfc" wrote : 
  | (I think this translates to being able to have a serialized reference to a MC bean itself. But to facilitate that the MC bean would need a serialized reference to the Kernel.)

No, that's the wrong place like I said above.

If the problem is passivation then it is the job of the container to remove implementation
details that are not serializable and re-instate them later. i.e. its EJB3's job

Equally, you can't put non-serializable stuff in a web session and expect it to be serializable
without extra work.

I don't see what the issue is really.

These must be internal implementation details so you know how to implement
this "externalization", you're just being lazy. i.e. you're expecting the MC
to do something that is not its job and will likely lead to other problems
that don't want, expect this behaviour or want to do something else.

DON'T MIX IMPLEMENTATION AND POLICY

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4152044#4152044

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4152044