Hey
marc fleury wrote:
> |java: is local. No distribution involved whatsoever.
>
> I know... that's what bothers me.
Why? If you want distribution use the default namespace.
> |> 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).
>
> pfffff
>
> you need to put the LinkRef you get from some place, please what is that
> place...
> or explain what you are thinking about... if an application deployer is to
> set up the visibility of the java: namespaces then that needs to include the
> client and I can't see how your "put a linkref" works for every VM on the
> planet.
>
> is there anything that you read in spec that says java: *is* VM local (is
> there? I don't know honestly, let me know)
Not quite following. A bean will be bound into the (distributed!)
default namespace. Let's say it is bound to "someapp/MyBean". In a
client we want "java:comp/env/ejb/MyBean" to be bound to that, so we
simply bind "java:comp/env/ejb/MyBean" in the client to a LinkRef with
the ref "someapp/MyBean". When the client looks up
"java:comp/env/ejb/MyBean" it will be dereferenced to the binding in the
distributed namespace, i.e. someapp/MyBean, which will return the beans
home.
R U with me?
> |> 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
>
> that is good but again when we move to cluster the fact that java: is VM
> dependent kills the whole idea...
NO NO NO... we have *2* namespaces... sorry, I should have been more
clear on that. We will have the default namespace, as we do today, for
everything that needs to be accessible from outside, i.e. EJB homes. For
VM local stuff we use java:. Internal/external, java:/default. (and when
I say "default" I mean "what you get when you do new InitialContext()").
> |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.
>
> relax, I should have been more clear. I am not criticism the "code" just
> that the idea of scoping VMs is smaller than server: for example and that
> RMH clients won't work with that... the code is really good though :))) I
> really like it :)))
See above. It Will Work(tm). I think the confusion was because you
thought I was removing the current distributed JNDI namespace.. which is
not the case, 'cause then nothing would work.. :-)
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
