I've been thinking about this still ( :) ), as it doesn't seem like we
have it quite right yet. Isn't the situation this:
1) non-remotable interface or (remotable interface with
allows-pass-by-reference and source and target are in same classloader
- do local invoke i.e. just Java method call
2) source and target are in same JVM, its not (1) so args must be
pass-by-value,
- either do remote invocation or optimize by doing arg copy and
local invocation
3) source and target are in different JVMs
- do remote invocation
Thats similar to the three below but subtly different, and there's
nothing specifically about Nodes in it.
...ant
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have three cases here:
>
> 1) The target endpoint is from the same node
> 2) The target endpoint is from a different node that is co-located in the
> same JVM (or Tuscany runtime)
> 3) The target endpoint is from a different node that is on a different
> machine
>
> 1 will be treated as a local invocation while 2 and 3 are remote
> invocations. The binding provider (such as distributed SCA binding provider)
> can choose to optimize 2 too. But what's critical here is we don't have a
> way to tell 2 from 1. Telling 2 from 3 is just a nice-to-have thing. IMO,
> fixing TUSCANY-3441 is much more important. I have volunteered to help that
> by adding Domain/Node URI.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:35 AM
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Adding domain and node URIs to RuntimeEndpoint?
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there are two issues here. I've pulled them out into separate
>>> JIRA:
>>>
>>> TUSCANY-3441 - local/remote determination
>>> TUSCANY-3442 - cross classloader messaging
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, and the reason I asked for more details about this in the first
>> place, is that we should try to minimize just adding stuff we think it
>> might be useful before anything actually uses it. So I think it would
>> be best to do TUSCANY-3442 first and see what it really needs and only
>> then if it really does need to know the Node of an endpoint then do
>> TUSCANY-3441. 3442 is just an optimization without it we can still
>> support everything with the remote SCA bindings.
>>
>> Related to this is TUSCANY-2586 about the pass-by-value copies which
>> could be fixed with the TUSCANY-3442 changes.
>>
>> ...ant
>
>
