[jboss-dev] JBoss Messaging - to scope or not to scope

[Ben Wang]

PojoCache also uses AOP but there is a requirement for compatibility as 
well.

-Ben

Tim Fox wrote:

>
> A major issue that is currently providing a barrier to adoption for
> JBoss Messaging and generally becoming a usability nightmare, is that
> JBoss Messaging depends on versions of JBoss Remoting and JBoss AOP that
> are more recent than those available in JBoss AS.
>
> This means when deploying JBM in the AS, the deployment has to be done
> as a scoped deployment in its own classloading domain. This also means
> that in some situations the entire MDB container needs to be scoped too.
>
> There is also a related problem that EJB3 (Carlo - may have fixed this
> recently) was using a different version of remoting to JBM causing them
> not to be able to work in the same client at the same time, - and of
> course scoping is not available on the client side.
>
> In short, scoping is a massive PITA for us. It contributes a huge number
> of support cases and forum queries since average Joe has great diffculty
> in working out how to do it.
>
> I would really love to get rid of the requirement to scope JBM
> altogether - this would give a massive boost to the project IMHO.
>
> How can we do this though?
>
> If we can ensure that the latest versions of AOP and Remoting are
> backward compatible with early versions then surely we can just
> overwrite the earlier versions in the AS when JBM is installed.
>
> Tom, Kabir can you comment on whether this is possible or desirable?
>
> If the versions are not compatible, how difficult would it be to make a
> few changes to remoting and aop to make them backward compatible?
>
> It's my understanding, that in AS 4.x it's only JBM, EJB3 and WS that
> use remoting, and only JBM that uses AOP - please correct me if I am 
> wrong.
>
> (BTW scoping is not an issue in JBAS5 since we will align dependencies)
>
> What are people's views on this?
>
> Are there any issues I have not considered?
>
> Can anyone think of any other solution?
>
>
>