On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Bill Burke wrote: > Makes sense. I think I know how to implement this. Do you all mind giving > me some time to implement it? Let's say until April 1 since I'm going to be > at JBoss One?
Sure. > Right now, for configuration, I'm going to assume in jboss.xml that you have > to specify both the invoker mbean name, proxy factory mbean name, and if > applicable, the jndi name for the HOME. The default will be the > JRMPInvoker, RMIPRoxyFactory, and the <ejb-name>. In the future we can > decide if we want funkier defaults like Marc suggested in his other email. Sounds good. > I think it is important to be able to specify the proxy factory and invoker > to give ultimate flexibility. Then again, maybe each invoker is only > associated with a Proxy Factory Factory in MBean configuration. You only > specify the invoker in jboss.xml, then the container asks the > ProxyFactoryFactory for an instance of a ProxyFactory. The opposite might also be useful. (You only specify the ProxyFactory.) > So instead of just one JRMPInvoker for both MBeans and EJB containers, you'd > have 2 different invokers. One for MBeans the other for EJB containers. > (It would really be the same object type, just configured differently.). > > Am I making sense, or am I just babbling? Makes sense to me. Cheers, Francisco _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
