> Hi Rickard,
>
> We know which protocol each client in the chain uses. Why can't
> we substitute the correct EJBObject (based on the protocol) at
> each stage? For instance, we know that session A uses protocol
That is correct and the simple way to pass it as outlined is the MI that
carries a reference to the CI so that the getEJBObject() from the context
delegates to a getEJBObject wrapper at some point to the CI.
marc
> Bar to access session B, so we return a bar-protocol EJBObject
> to session A. Now when session A returns this EJBObject to the
> client, we again know that the client uses protocol Foo, so we
> substitute the correct foo-protocol EJBObject as the returned
> object. It seems to me that this would be possible to implement
> using, for instance, the serialization replacement mechanism.
> When we serialize an EJBObject we check the protocol that the
> destination uses and substitute the correct instance. (Obviously
> this method wouldn't work with the pass-by-reference optimization,
> and the deployer would need to be aware of this and use
> consistent protocols for beans using this optimization.)
>
> Just a thought...
>
> -Dan
>
>
> >
> > And that is the problem. If beans couldn't call beans it would be much
> > simpler, because then the above wouldn't happen.
> >
> > I suggest that you also spend some "considerable thought" on this before
> > call it "not a fundamental problem". Which it is. :-/
> >
> > /Rickard
> >
> > --
> > Rickard �berg
> >
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.telkel.com
> > http://www.jboss.org
> > http://www.dreambean.com
> >
>
>
>
>
