cool, take it to jboss-dev and take a shot at it :)
marc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Crain
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 7:25 AM
> To: jBoss
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] UserTrasaction
>
>
> Yes that is the same problem I ran into with the java: namespace
> being linked to
> a JNDI context held by each container.
>
> I can think of a couple of ways to attack this, but I think the
> most elegant way
> is to extend javaURLConextFactory. Right now, this class implements the
> Container-bound-ness of the java: namespace. However, if I read the spec
> correctly, this behavior only makes sense for the
> "java:/comp/env" context,
> since this context is local to each bean type. However,
> "java:/comp" is global,
> accessible from any thread. Therefore, the javaURLContextFactory
> could delegate
> comp namespaces to a specialized comp context factory object that
> could serve as
> a registry for things like the UserTransaction. And if we want
> to serve up the
> UserTransaction to remote clients, we'd need a UserTransaction
> implementation
> similar to the one within EnterpriseContext, but that extends
> java.rmi.server.UnicastRemoteObject.
>
> The magic, I realize, is in the delegation mentioned above...i.e., when to
> return contexts bound to the Container versus a global Context.
> I think it's
> clear that the javaURLContextFactory might have to do some name
> parsing of its
> own and gain some more intelligence.
>
> -Charles
>
> marc fleury wrote:
>
> > Ok for the JNDI stuff it is going to be a bit more complex than I first
> > thought (no wonder it was NYI). The trick is that the JNDI
> name java: is
> > static for the container and instead of doing a copy of it
> (which would be
> > very heavy) we would like to store a ref to the Tx that is linked to the
> > context of the instance. We will need a factory that is thread local
> > somehow, and right now we need to do it...
> >
> > so getUserTransaction from the context is the simple way to do it.
> >
> > marc
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc fleury
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:22 PM
> > > To: jBoss
> > > Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] UserTrasaction
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok we just looked at it with sebastien.
> > >
> > > the bottom line is that the Tx from "getUserTransaction" is
> implemented
> > > tx from JNDI is NYI and we are on it, some retooling in
> order, hang on.
> > >
> > > marc
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Crain
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 1:13 PM
> > > > To: jBoss
> > > > Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] UserTrasaction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was looking in the code for this. It appears that looking up a
> > > > UserTransation
> > > > with JNDI is not supported. The EJB 1.1 spec states
> explicitly that the
> > > > container does not need to make the UserTransaction object
> > > > available via JNDI to
> > > > ALL clients, though several EJB containers do (JoNaS, WebLogic...)
> > > >
> > > > What I find weird is that even beans running WITHIN jBoss can't
> > > > use JNDI to look
> > > > up a UserTransaction object, and then control the transactions of
> > > > other beans.
> > > > Of couse, you can do the exact same thing by using bean-managed
> > > > transactions and
> > > > calling the getUserTransaction method of EJBContext.
> > > >
> > > > What I would like to see is the ability of services running
> > > > within jBoss to look
> > > > up UserTransaction objects and control transactions of beans.
> > > > For instance,
> > > > Servlets and JSP's running in the Tomcat service really should be
> > > > able to get
> > > > access to the UserTransaction object.
> > > >
> > > > -Charles
> > > >
> > > > Sean Han wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, everyone:
> > > > >
> > > > > If I want to get a UserTrasaction object from jBoss, what JNDI
> > > > name should I
> > > > > use in lookup() method?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > > > > http://im.yahoo.com
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
