> > > I would like to note that my future plans for this involve method specific > interceptor chains with a variety of "client side" and "server side" tx > interceptors, each one performing half of the TxSupport work. No maps, > just different specialized interceptors, with different interceptors per > method depending on the tx support. >
Hmmmm...thanks for mentioning this. The AOP framework will have to change to support his type of per method intercepiton. Currently the ClassAdvisor asks the InterceptorFactory for an instance of an Interceptor and adds it to the interceptor chain. For what you want to do, this will have to change. The InterceptorFactory should be responsible for adding interceptors to the chain. Otherwise, my isolation and separation of metadata, interceptors, and pointcuts will be broken. > I also think you will admit that even in aop you could have two > interceptors even if both were on the server side: one to get the tx from > the context if appropriate or remove it if appropriate, one to start a new > tx if appropriate. > Yes, but I still have to figure out whether or not the method call went through a proxy or was a regular java method call. Bill ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
