[jboss-dev-forums] [JBoss AS Development] - Re: Naming over Remoting 3

[david.lloyd@jboss.com]

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : "bstansberry at jboss.com" wrote : 
  |   | Are we finally going to get rid of JRMPInvoker in AS 6?
  |   | 
  | 
  | For that matter, what about the rest of the org.jboss.invocation.* stuff?  And what about the org.jboss.proxy.* stuff?  Will it stay where it is, or, maybe, move to invokablecontainer?  
  | 
  | Moving the Naming proxy back to the server makes me want to use GenericProxyFactory, but that depends on the Invoker interface.  So that makes me want to write Remoting3Invoker and Remoting3InvokerProxy integration classes.  
  | 
  | So many questions.  DML, I'll bet you already have a plan.

No plan.  But I do have an opinion. Well, more like a general principle.

Invocation proxies like ALR's project should generally only be used to implement specifications which define the invocation of methods on remote objects (e.g. RMI, EJB3, probably a few others).  If what you're implementing is a service (such as JNDI for example) which can be expressed in terms of a fixed set of request and reply types, it's better/cleaner/simpler/more efficient to get rid of the remote proxy idea and just use straight request/reply objects directly.

That said, I still think that ALR's invocation object (and surrounding infrastructure) should be the sole mechanism, or the basis thereof, by which proxied remote method invocations are transmitted across the wire and consumed.  All the other invocation mechanisms should go away.



View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4267210#4267210

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4267210