On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
|Seems like I don't need
Burke
Envoye : jeudi, 27 juin 2002 10:11
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
Holger, your ideas are very interesting and thought provoking. Although I
disagree with a lot of them (read further), I believe that this is a good
conversion and something very cool will come
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
Holger, your ideas are very interesting and thought provoking. Although I
disagree with a lot of them (read further), I believe that this is a good
conversion and something very cool will come out of it.
Actually I've already learned from this
Yes. But if we need to bootsrap the jndi communication, we can skip this
jndi lookup and just send the create invocation to the invoker. How the
invokers can be accessed must either be wellknown or somehow configured
on the client.
yes, the problem is that I am not sure (in fact I am pretty
Snip ...
You mean no url provider, but jndi.properties (=environment)? OK. But I
can't live with global jndi.properties. I need them on a per *-ref basis,
because the components I connect are spreaded across several different
application servers.
It would seem that you would still want
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Sacha Labourey wrote:
Yes. But if we need to bootsrap the jndi communication, we can skip this
jndi lookup and just send the create invocation to the invoker. How the
invokers can be accessed must either be wellknown or somehow configured
on the client.
yes, the
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Holger Engels wrote:
That is local jndi. I am looking up the coded name in my local
jndi-namespace. The coded name is defined as an ejb-ref in my
application-client.xml. what I get is something, that feels like a proxy
to the ejb's home. the ejb-ref must be configured
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
ProxyFactory is not an MBean. Just an object right now. Config code,
creates and attaches ProxyFactorys to each EJB. (Each EJB is an mbean
though).
Still trying to understand ..
Seems like I don't need an HTTPInvoker. Only an HTTPInvokerProxy and a
Hello,
Seems like I don't need an HTTPInvoker. Only an HTTPInvokerProxy and a
InvokerServlet, that forwards invocations to the local invoker. If I
your Invoker should directly forward invocations to the JMX MBeanServer and
not forward it to another local invoker
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Holger Engels
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 6:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
ProxyFactory is not an MBean. Just
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Holger Engels
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 6:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
ProxyFactory is not an MBean. Just
Yes, a sar is perfect for this since there's really no config for this
invoker, right?
you now what we need? It is an XML file for config with the JAR *inside the
xml in a CDATA section (as MIME encoded for example)!! ;)
We don't care about the extra-size anyway. So, instead of having an XML
|Seems like I don't need an HTTPInvoker. Only an HTTPInvokerProxy and a
|InvokerServlet, that forwards invocations to the local invoker. If I
use the JMX bus directly,
|understand it, the proxy must provide a TransactionPropagationContext
|instance to each Invocation. This has to be imported in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
|Seems like I don't need an HTTPInvoker. Only an HTTPInvokerProxy
On 2002.06.26 14:11:38 -0400 Bill Burke wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
|Seems like I don't
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Holger Engels
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
Holger, in JBoss 3.0 we have client
JDK already has built in RMI HTTP tunneling. Why would we need this
transport?
Here's directions:
http://www.dmh2000.com/ApacheTomcatRMI.htm
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Holger Engels
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:00 AM
The HTTP RMI tunning is the shits. Firstly there is no option to go with
https without getting really ugly. Secondly, the whole cgi-script or
servlet which then calls the local rmi listener generates two network
calls for lookup. Since jetty is running in the container the servlet
lookup should
10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
The HTTP RMI tunning is the shits. Firstly there is no option to go with
https without getting really ugly. Secondly, the whole cgi-script or
servlet which then calls the local rmi listener generates two network
calls
till monday and thus won't read /
answer mail until then ..
holger
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave
Smith
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] http transport
The HTTP
Holger, in JBoss 3.0 we have client interceptors, and pluggable transports.
The invocation has been totally decoupled from the EJB container. The EJB
Container is now just an MBean and all EJB invocations go across the JMX
bus.
JBoss 3.1 takes things a bit further. In 3.1 you can now define
21 matches
Mail list logo
