On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:01 AM, David Jencks wrote:
The problem is our users' applications will make use of mapped
name in other application servers, and since every application
server that I know if is implementing these with Global JNDI, it
becomes a defacto standard and requirement for Jee5. Moreover, I
believe that our GlobalJNDI names must be simple normal names
(i.e, not encoded abstract names) you would see in other
application servers, because users will annotate their code with
the mapped names, effectively locking in the Global JNDI names
that they expect to work in our application server.
umm, that assumes that either every other app server has come up
with exactly the same scheme for global jndi names so they are in
fact interoperable or that we can imitate everyone elses naming
scheme at once.
um, I'm not making that assumption. I'm assuming that other systems
are using Global JNDI for resolving refs and that users will have
"normal" JNDI names hardcoded into their apps. By normal names I
would say that they are simple words separated by a '/' character.
So do you agree that Global JNDI is the defacto required
implementation for these and other similar entries?
no.
Since the beginning of geronimo we've carefully stayed away from
relying on global jndi for resolving references since it imposes
global constraints on what you can deploy at once in the app
server, despite every other app server I know of relying on global
jndi for resolving references. I'm extremely reluctant to abandon
the lack of conflicts between apps that we have now to run after an
alleged similarity with other app servers without thorough
investigation of compatibility between other app servers and
thinking about other choices that would preserve the lack of
conflicts.
I understand your reluctance and know the history, but reality is
*everyone* uses Global JNDI. I challenge you to find a single JEE
server that doesn't. Since everyone does, it is the defacto
standard, and it is becoming more ingrained into the specs. I think
we need give up on our custom system, and simply implement it the way
everyone else dose.
Note that the use of any particular style of name in such
annotations does not imply that the target is actually bound in
jndi: all it requires is that we can find the resource somehow.
Two alternatives that I would prefer to global jndi are:
1. We know the type of the thing we're looking for, so we can
simply treat the provided string as an (extended) ejb-link,
resource-link, etc and search the ancestor tree of the current app
for a unique match. IMO this would be a lot simpler to implement
that relying on global jndi, because we already have the code
implemented and don't have to bind anything anywhere.
2. "scoped" global jndi. Each application gets a "global" jndi
tree that only includes stuff from itself and its ancestor graph.
This avoids conflicts and should satisfy those with a jndi fetish.
There is nothing wrong with either proposal, and either would be a
step forward. I just think we shouldn't invent something new and
just give users what they expect.
-dain
