> But JMS deals with asynchronous invocation, whereas threads deals with
> asynchronous processing without the overhead of sending messages all day
> long (= more code to write, more code to debug, more CPU time to waste),
> and with the ability to interact with a process in progress.
>
> If you send a JMS message you might be able to start a process and get a
> response when it's done in an asynchronous manner, but you cannot
> interfere with a running process, since you have no mechanism for a
> running process (i.e. threads).
This seems like a perfect fit for making this kind of functionality a
JMX MBean. (see
http://www.javasoft.com/products/JavaManagement/index.html).
I don't see any compelling reason to make another type of bean that
duplicates the functionality already available in JMX. JMX beans are
portable between different servers supporting JMX, they are manageable,
they can interact in whatever fashion you like with EJB's, etc etc.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dreambean.com
Question reality
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
