On 2003.02.22 00:13 Bill Burke wrote:
Tx propagation can be pushed to a generic remoting framework/object if
the
underlying transport supports it. Class/Interface Metadata can't.
Why not? I thought the txsupport stuff demonstrated that it could. It
certainly doesn't depend on any special
lördagen den 22 februari 2003 kl 00.45 skrev Bill Burke:
I'm not understanding you.
Maybe this is Your / Our Problem ? ... !!! ...
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge.
The most comprehensive and flexible code
I've been thinking and should have posted this before. Your design is
fataly flawed when I start applying it to the AOP framework. Your design
assumes that there is a proxy sitting in front of everything. In AOP this
is not the case. If you look at
I'm getting kind of tired of what I find vague complaints without detailed
explanations of the framework in which you think there might be a problem.
I think remote AOP is going to need;
1. some representation of the object you are calling
2. client interceptors. For instance, to get the
] TxInterceptor split is
really really bad
I've been thinking and should have posted this
before. Your design is
fataly flawed when I start applying it to the AOP
framework. Your design
assumes that there is a proxy sitting in front of
everything. In AOP this
is not the case. If you look
]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is
really really bad
I've been thinking and should have posted this
before. Your design is
fataly flawed when I start applying it to the AOP
framework. Your design
assumes that there is a proxy sitting in front of
everything. In AOP
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Hiram Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look
:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I personally don't think AOP should have anything related to
transactions, remoting, etc. I think that should be pushed up into the
functional areas that apply those specific semantics
Whoops, forgot to send this too.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Jencks
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I'm getting kind of tired
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
, 2003 4:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split
is
really really bad
I've been thinking and should have posted this
before. Your design is
fataly flawed when I start applying it to the
AOP
framework. Your design
assumes
--- Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
Haynie
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it otherwise you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
--- Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jeff Haynie
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it otherwise you
--- Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This might sound a little crazy... but how about
allowing multiple server-side interceptor stacks
per
object? One for local access, one for stuff over
IIOP
(that does tx the ots way), one for stuff over
JRMP
etc.
In the long run,
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it otherwise you won't be
talking about where and how tx or remoting should go into AOP.
Maybe I'm missing something.
I'm not understanding you. I certainly buy into it and am
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
Haynie
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR against what
20 matches
Mail list logo
