I imagine we need something like Subdeployers exposing an additional interface 
to register/deregister interceptors.

Some issues that come to my mind:

- I'd prefer not to have one more Interceptor class. The JMX interceptor seems 
too much for this, while I'm not yet sure if something can be re-used from the 
future 5.0 kernel interceptor

- For the interceptor to gain control we'll have to possibly create another set 
of methods on the SubDeployer interface to be used by MainDeployer (e.g. 
interceptedInit, intereceptedCreate/Start/Stop/Destroy) that delegate to the 
interceptor chain, with the default interceptor calling the standard 
init/create/start/stop/destroy methods.

- About the ordering, wherever we've used interceptors so far, it is by means 
of explicit declaration in some xml file. I don't know how the aop framework 
handles this for "dynamic" interceptor registrations, so at the most I'd 
imagine something like, add()/addFirst()/addLast()

- Since the set of methods for the subdeployer interface is fixed, maybe it 
makes sense instead of a "generic" interceptor to have a specific 
SubDeployerHandler

- From the webservice deployer it seems the problem with the existing 
notification based scheme, is that the "attaching" deployer cannot fail the 
"primary" deployment

View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3855890#3855890

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3855890


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
JBoss-Development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development

Reply via email to