[jboss-dev] Naming over Remoting 3

[David M. Lloyd]

Let's move future discussion there rather than having two threads going at 
once...

- DML

On 11/20/2009 01:22 PM, Scott Stark wrote:
> I added David's and Carlo's comments to the thread Ron had started on
> this topic.
> http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266823
>
> Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>> Whether it will be ATTCTMVP (tm) or something else ( for example
>> http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/ejb3/trunk/remoting2/src/main/java/org/jboss/ejb3/remoting/endpoint/RemotableEndpoint.java
>> ) remains to be seen. I like
>> http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/common/invokablecontainer/trunk/api/src/main/java/org/jboss/ejb3/container/api/Invocation.java
>> with the exception that target is not a first class citizen.
>>
>> AOPRemotingInvocationHandler&  Dispatcher definitely need to go. The
>> first, because remoting is not an aspect, the second because it's a
>> singleton with weird SPI (
>> http://fisheye.jboss.org/browse/JBossAS/trunk/ejb3/src/main/org/jboss/ejb3/session/ClassProxyHack.java?r=69926
>> ).
>>
>> Now if you put JNDI, Remoting and proxies in one sentence one
>> requirement is the most important:
>> - all proxies must be transport unaware.
>>
>> So if I bind an EJB into JNDI it doesn't matter whether I lookup through
>> an HTTP(S), IIOP or whatever to get a proxy tied to the connection with
>> which I'm communicating with AS.
>> The same goes for clustering, that is just a virtual connection to a
>> virtual host (/ real cluster).
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>> On 11/19/2009 03:54 AM, Ron Sigal wrote:
>>
>>> So ATTCRMVP (tm) would be the descendant of
>>> org.jboss.aspects.remoting.AOPRemotingInvocationHandler /
>>> org.jboss.aop.Dispatcher ?
>>>
>>> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> One observation that's neither here nor there - ALR has been kicking
>>>> around a "back to basics" simple invocation mechanism that should work
>>>> for all Things That Call Remote Methods Via a Proxy (tm), for EJB3 and
>>>> whatever else it may apply to, which opens the possibility to come up
>>>> with a standard Remoting 3 invocation service of some sort.
>>>>
>>>> It looks pretty good to me so far.  It lives here:
>>>> http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/common/invokablecontainer/trunk/api/
>>>>
>>>> Granted realistically this is going to apply more to what we stick
>>>> *in* JNDI, than how JNDI is itself implemented (which, afaict, -could-
>>>> just be a straight-up Remoting 3 service type, though that'd be a more
>>>> significant departure from the current implementation from what I
>>>> understand of it, than sticking with something more RMI-like).
>>>>
>>>> - DML
>>>>
>>>> On 11/18/2009 07:42 PM, Ron Sigal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I subject has arisen in JBAS-3151 "Convert HA-JNDI stubs to Remoting"
>>>>> that Brian has suggested deserves some discussion. I've started a forum
>>>>> thread
>>>>> (http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4266436#4266436),
>>>>>
>>>>> but here's the teaser:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *"ron" wrote:*
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Is there anything wrong with HARMIClient and HARMIServer, other than the
>>>>> fact that they depend on RMI?
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *"brian" wrote:*
>>>>>
>>>>> Not particularly, no. I think the main issues are 1) we want to unify as
>>>>> much as possible on a single remote invocation mechanism 2) get rid of
>>>>> myriad sockets opened by different services. I suppose the latter goes
>>>>> beyond the description of this JIRA as it involve converting
>>>>> HANamingService to use a Remoting connector instead of directly
>>>>> listening on port 1101.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *"ron" wrote:*
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like there are two kinds of Naming listeners:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. the "bootstrap" listeners in org.jnp.server.Main and
>>>>> org.jboss.ha.jndi.HANamingService, and
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. the actual service listeners: org.jnp.server.NamingServer and
>>>>> org.jboss.ha.framework.server.HARMIServerImpl
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we'd like to replace them all with handlers on a single Remoting
>>>>> connector (or, actually, the Remoting 3 version of of handlers and
>>>>> connectors).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *"brian" wrote:*
>>>>>
>>>>> The bootstrap listener part probably bears discussion on the jboss-dev
>>>>> list since it much more directly impacts stuff like end-user
>>>>> configuration (i.e. jndi.properties or other ways of setting the
>>>>> properties passed to new InitialContext()). The service listeners are
>>>>> more straightforward.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Discuss?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ron
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development