Ok, good. One step of abstraction above this is the notion of container mediated services. So for example, in the case of my ModelMBean pojo wanting access to the MBeanServer, if it only needs this to access a service representable by an interface, it would be better if there was a dependency specification that was mapped onto a service binding which determined the implementation type: MBean, EJB, WebService, POJO, etc.
This pulls in a lot of complexity that we don't transparently deal well with today but I would like to think about handling better: Dependency Redeployment and life cycle Transparency of redeployment Call context propagation; security, tx, call by value/reference handling View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3831114#3831114 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3831114 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
