> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of marc fleury
> Sent: vendredi, 12. septembre 2003 01:28
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Re: [jboss-group] revamping
> Invocation objects
>
>
There is no such compatibility anyway. Or you simply do an Invocation2 and
have the server accept both but this will create legacy code that is not
very useful.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Burke
> Sent: vendredi, 12. septe
s-Dev
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Re: [jboss-group] revamping Invocation objects
I'd rather not maintain something like that. What do you think?
IMHO, we should guarantee over-the-wire compatibility only for a
specific branch. over-the-wire compatibility should be breakable
between major release
The serialization contract as dictated by the serialVersionID at which the class
was fixed in 3.2 should be maintained.
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Bill Burke wrote:
I'd rather not maintain something like that. What d
gt; > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Bill Burke
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 6:22 PM
> > To: Private list for internal JBoss Group discussion; Jboss-Dev
> > Subject: [JBoss-dev] Re: [jboss-group] revamping Invocation
bject: [JBoss-dev] Re: [jboss-group] revamping Invocation objects
>
>
> I'd rather not maintain something like that. What do you think?
>
> IMHO, we should guarantee over-the-wire compatibility only for a
> specific branch. over-the-wire compatibility should be breakable
I'd rather not maintain something like that. What do you think?
IMHO, we should guarantee over-the-wire compatibility only for a
specific branch. over-the-wire compatibility should be breakable
between major releases.
Adrian Brock wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 23:00, Bill Burke wrote:
Ok, I
Ok, I wouldn't be able to improve raw, over-the-wire, remote performance
without breaking compatibility with older JBoss versions.
Bill
Bill Burke wrote:
Only problem here is that what I've done so far is not backward
compatible with a previous version of JBoss. I guess this is important.
Only problem here is that what I've done so far is not backward
compatible with a previous version of JBoss. I guess this is important.
correct? I can make it compatible, but it will be a tiny bit ugly.
I did increase performance for noop local interface calls for SLSB by 20%.
Adrian Brock
