Hi!
marc fleury wrote:
> |2. Today everything is bound into the default JNDI namespace. The
> |drawback of this is that many (almost all actually) of the things that
> |are bound have no meaning outside of the JVM, such as connection pools,
> |security managers, transaction manager etc. I propose that they be moved
> |to the VM-local "java:/" namespace. This would require changing the
> |binding and the lookup places, but all in all that should be pretty
> |minor.
>
> ok this you need to explain a bit more to me. I like it but I thought that
> the new java: was distributed, i.e available outside VM?? if you want a
> local directory in jndi call the f*cking disk "local:".
java: is local. No distribution involved whatsoever.
> I mean that the jndi is just underused right now and the "flat" jndi is just
> strange. it's a distributed filesystem, it's a distributed filesystem, it's
> a distributed filesystem.
>
> so I am saying...
> 1- is java: == local a violation of the j2ee spec? (i.e RMH java: lookups
> from the client wont' work right?
No, see that's another story. The java: for clients will be local, *but*
the bindings in the java: namespace on the client will point to a remote
JNDI (through a LinkRef).
It will work right.
> 2- I actually REALLY like the idea of a local inVM directory of jndi
Yes, especially since most of the stuff we bind in it now don't make any
sense outside of the VM.
> 3- be explicit then (thanks to the one that pointed out the correct
> spelling, that will teach me to go loud :) so if you want to put all your
> local stuff either put it in local: (like I want a system:) or do a
> java:/comp/env/local/ whatever but name that "locality" if you must
How about java:server/? E.g. java:server/TransactionManager and
java:server/jdbc/MyPool
> 4- I don't think java: is the right place for it, given 1 and 3
Why not? It fits the bill IMHO. You seem to be hung up on the name...
> |Does this seem like a good idea? May I have your vote please.
>
> yes, very good idea, but wrong implementation imho
Wrong implementation!? What is wrong with the implementation?? From what
I can deduce above your only doubt is the name, i.e. "java:". Otherwise
it fits what we want.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
