For what it's worth, Dain whiteboarded his plan for me the other day
and I'm 100% on board with the proposed changes.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 1/20/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:46 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> >
> >> Personally I am not ready for 1.1 to be frozen.
> >>
> >> Also, there is at least one major bug (tomcat cross-context
> >> dispatch) that needs to be fixed and I haven't seen any progress
> >> on it.
> >>
> >> The nature of your change might affect other peoples opinion on
> >> this also, what are you planning?
> >
> > I am working on splitting the OpenEJB container into one object for
> > each deployed ejb and a set of share invocation processing ejb
> > containers. This is a refactoring of internal interfaces well
> > below the layer our users see.
>
> Does this mean there will be one interceptor stack for each ejb type,
> shared among all the e.g. stateless sesssion ejbs? What is the
> advantage of this design? I can think of some disadvantages compared
> to our present design but no advantages. Probably just a lack of
> imagination, but I'd really appreciate discussion of architectural
> changes before the code arrives.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> >
> > Regardless, of this change, I don't want to be the one that checks
> > in stuff that breaks the build or TCK 3 days before a branch is cut.
> >
> > -dain
>
>
