Francisco Reverbel wrote:
Isn't Borland dead yet? They're still selling their CORBA implementation?
I thought Iona had cornered the market. The commercial market that is.
Yes, they are selling it. What I don't know is whether there is anybody
buying it or not... :-)
Not kidding now:
PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|While working on the IIOP module, I have used an IIOP server
|configuration that turns IIOP into the default.
|
|Let me put it more clearly: by default, EJBs are deployed in a
|JRMP container. If I want an EJB to be deployed in an IIOP
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jason Dillon wrote:
Useful, yes... practical... probably not. With the current system
configuration this would be difficult to implement and still provide a
consistent view of the basic configuration attributes.
I don't see this very clearly... Wouldn't be mostly a
Message -
From: Francisco Reverbel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
While working on the IIOP module, I have used an IIOP server
configuration that turns IIOP into the default.
Let me put
: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
We will support multiple container invokers such that any
number of access protocols are available so being able to
run multiple configurations is not how this should be done
PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|In other words, one EJB can be accessible through IIOP, RMI, SOAP, XML-RPC
|all at the same time. This is the future. Multiple MBean
|invokers, 1 MBean
|as per Marc's vision.
|
|Bill
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL
at the command prompt already
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|Francisco Reverbel
|Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:10 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|While working
PROTECTED]
| |Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
| |
| |
| |While working on the IIOP module, I have used an IIOP server
| |configuration that turns IIOP into the default.
| |
| |Let me put it more clearly: by default, EJBs are deployed in a
| |JRMP container. If I want an EJB
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:55 AM
To: Bill Burke; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
oh good point, but that doesn't require top level
configuration, just drop
the iiop and jrmp and webservices and bla bla bla and it is all
]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:55 AM
To: Bill Burke; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
oh good point, but that doesn't require top level
configuration, just drop
the iiop and jrmp and webservices and bla bla bla and it is all
1. I think it would be 2 copies of maybe EJBDeployer or a metadata class. I
guess you'd need 2 MainDeployers so each could send ejb-jars to the
appropriate EJBDeployer.
2. I thought marc had an idea of separating the container and interceptor
stack from the invoker, so many invokers could use
|2. I thought marc had an idea of separating the container and interceptor
|stack from the invoker, so many invokers could use the same
|container/stack/ejb. I think this is a more promising way to go -- you can
|say all my ejbs should be invokable from JRMP and IIOP or one or the
|other
-Original Message-
From: Francisco Reverbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:38 AM
To: Bill Burke
Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
You're right, Bill. I will have to massage my
This is a very nice idea!!!
Claudio
-Original Message-
From: marc fleury [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:09 PM
To: David Jencks; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
|2. I thought marc had an idea
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Jencks wrote:
1. I think it would be 2 copies of maybe EJBDeployer or a metadata class. I
guess you'd need 2 MainDeployers so each could send ejb-jars to the
appropriate EJBDeployer.
2. I thought marc had an idea of separating the container and interceptor
stack
| 2 - Marc's code allows multiple invokers per container. The JRMP stuff
| is all there, but there is still some work to be done to enable
| multiple homes. There is also some work to be done on the IIOP stuff
| (IIOP invocations are not going through JMX today).
that's the first
2 - Marc's code allows multiple invokers per container. The JRMP stuff
is all there, but there is still some work to be done to enable
multiple homes. There is also some work to be done on the IIOP stuff
(IIOP invocations are not going through JMX today).
To clarify. This
Hello Bill,
From: Francisco Reverbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
Must embed the container's JMX name into my IORs and route IIOP
invocations through the MBean server. This has been in my todo
list for quite a while...
Is this portable? Can other orbs just ignore the extra
, 2002 3:10 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|While working on the IIOP module, I have used an IIOP server
|configuration that turns IIOP into the default.
|
|Let me put it more clearly: by default, EJBs are deployed in a
|JRMP container. If I want
] Multiple server configurations
|
|
|
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
| Francisco Reverbel
| Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:11 PM
| To: Bill Burke
| Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Francisco Reverbel
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:11 PM
To: Bill Burke
Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
Hello Bill
, 2002 4:40 PM
To: Francisco Reverbel
Cc: marc fleury; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
Perhaps the invoker configuration should be seperate and parrallel to
the container configuration?
--jason
Francisco Reverbel wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Wed, 20 Mar
This is already the case, Jason. Invokers are configured as an MBean.
standardjboss.xml binds the ProxyFactory to the container. Implicitly, a
default invoker is bound to the container. You can bind your own invoker to
the container by specifying home-invoker or bean-invoker with an MBean
-Original Message-
From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:04 PM
To: Bill Burke
Cc: Francisco Reverbel; marc fleury;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
This is already the case, Jason. Invokers
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
Yes, it is fully portable. I will not use an IOR context, will use the
IOR object id instead.
So, you can't add abitrary IOR contexts?
The OMG-blessed term is IOR profile. There is also a thing called IIOP
context, which is a per-message stuff. An
-Original Message-
From: Francisco Reverbel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:44 PM
To: Bill Burke
Cc: marc fleury; Scott M Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
Yes
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
Oh yes! Now I remember. IOR Profiles, and service contexts. It's been
awhile (2 years).
Service contexts, right! Not IIOP contexts, as I said...
Now you are the one that remembers the official names.
So the JMX name must go within the object id.
|The OMG-blessed term is IOR profile. There is also a thing called IIOP
|context, which is a per-message stuff. An IIOP request to some target IOR
|carries some of the data stuffed into the target IOR (the object key,
|which includes the object id field), plus zero or more IIOP contexts (data
Francisco Reverbel wrote:
Isn't Borland dead yet? They're still selling their CORBA implementation?
I thought Iona had cornered the market. The commercial market that is.
Yes, they are selling it. What I don't know is whether there is anybody
buying it or not... :-)
Not kidding now:
While working on the IIOP module, I have used an IIOP server
configuration that turns IIOP into the default.
Let me put it more clearly: by default, EJBs are deployed in a
JRMP container. If I want an EJB to be deployed in an IIOP container,
I must add to its jboss.xml file an element like
I was wondering if this setting would be useful for others, then had
an idea... Wouldn't it be nice to have both configurations active at
once? I mean: if one could have two different deploy directories
simultaneously handled by the server, by saying something like
run.sh -c default -c
31 matches
Mail list logo
