[jboss-dev-forums] [Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: New tree state model

[jason.greene@jboss.com]

"alesj" wrote : "jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : 
  |   | We should not be increasing the already high level of complexity in the MC by trying to make it into an EJB container.
  |   | 
  | Where did you pick up this?
  | This is just a discussion/brainstorming about 
  | how to change current (limited) linear state model.
  | 

Increasing the complexity of the MC state model to support something that only EJB3 needs, that might not even be the right way to solve their problem needs to be justified.  

anonymous wrote : 
  | "jason.greene at jboss.com" wrote : Why does the MC have to manage anything associated with passivation?
  | This was just an example.
  | And since EJB actually builds upon MC, it's a real example.
  | Currently they have to do some tweaks/hacks to get around this problem.
  | With a tree based state model this would be trivial to do it properly.
  | 

Great, but before this is done, we need to first ask should it be done? Does the overall AS architecture make sense this way? How does this make the MC better for users? How does this make the AS better for users?

anonymous wrote : 
  | Your two post are just steering this discussion off the target.
  | I would much rather see you added something useful on how
  | we should actually impl this new tree model,
  | then jumping on the thread when I simply mention EJB.
  | This is just not the way how MC dev forum should work. ;-)
  | 

This is exactly the way this forum should work. 



View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4224775#4224775

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4224775