1. I think it would be 2 copies of maybe EJBDeployer or a metadata class. I guess you'd need 2 MainDeployers so each could send ejb-jars to the appropriate EJBDeployer.
2. I thought marc had an idea of separating the container and interceptor stack from the invoker, so many invokers could use the same container/stack/ejb. I think this is a more promising way to go -- you can say "all my ejbs should be invokable from JRMP and IIOP" or one or the other individually. I may have missed something here, let me know. david jencks On 2002.03.20 10:08:48 -0500 Francisco Reverbel wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jason Dillon wrote: > > > Useful, yes... practical... probably not. With the current system > > configuration this would be difficult to implement and still provide a > > consistent view of the basic configuration attributes. > > I don't see this very clearly... Wouldn't be mostly a matter of setting > up more than one MainDeployer, each seeing a different standardjboss.xml > resource? > > > It seems like you want to provide an easy way to enable/disable jrmp & > > iiop... it might be better to define some system properties to control > > this. Perhaps then use a switchable interceptor to handle the > > invocation layer? This way there is only one set of standard > > configurations which are both rmi and iiop capable depending on the > > value of some set of properties. > > Well, multiple server configurations are not strictly necessary. > They could be convenient in some situations, just that. > > JBoss already provides ways to switch between JRMP & IIOP. Right now you > can pick one of the following options: > > 1) change jboss.xml within your EJB jars, or > > 2) (if you do not want to change your EJB jars) > use a separate JBoss server, whose configuration renders unnecessary > any changes the jboss.xml files in your EJB jars. > > My suggestion aimed at avoiding both the need for changes in your EJB > jars > and the need for a separate JBoss server. You "switchable interceptor" > hint > sounds interesting, but where the "switch control" would be? If it would > be > in the jboss.xml files within your EJB jars, then it buys us nothing. > > > Or something... I don't know, but I would not like to see the system > > augmented to support multipule configurations as you show in your > example. > > I will not try to push my idea on you, as I really do not know how useful > it > would be in real scenarios. > > Best, > > Francisco > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
