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

[ron.sigal@jboss.com]

"ALRubinger" wrote : 
  | Its real value is in a wire protocol that's tested for both forward- and backward-compatibility. Basically the class InvocationImpl and its tests.
  | 

I really enjoyed that.

"ALRubinger" wrote : 
  | But then again, that's the scope of the thing. Its intended to be extended via composition to add on your requirements, or supplemented w/ JBMAR or R3. 
  | 

If it's intended to be generally extensible, then isn't "ejb3" in the package names misleading?  How about "invokable" in place of "ejb3"?

"david.lloyd at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | 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. 
  | 

OK, makes sense.  One nice thing about the proxy factories, though, is that they have a built in mechanism for handling interceptors.  I guess there's no reason a chain of interceptors couldn't be downloaded by a Naming client, but 

1. the Naming client would probably end up packaging an invocation and sending it down the interceptor chain, acting just like a proxy, and

2. the Naming client would have its own implementation of the general proxy mechanism.

"ron.sigal at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | And what about the org.jboss.proxy.* stuff? Will it stay where it is, or, maybe, move to invokablecontainer? 
  | 

If invokablecontainer doesn't want the proxy stuff, how about a Proxy project that builds on invokablecontainer?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4267378#4267378

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4267378