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
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 spec
> -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 int
, 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 won't be
talking about where and how tx or remoting should go into AOP.
Maybe I'm missing something.
I'm not
--- 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.
> >
>
d I worked on.
Jeff
> -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
>
>
> -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
>
>
>
> --- Bil
> -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 ha
> -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
--- 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 di
lawed".
> > > But again, my gut tells
> > > me that it is bad to have a dependency between
> > > server and client
> > > interceptors if it is not absolutely needed.
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From:
> > &
>
>
> 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
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
uary 21, 2003 6:09 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
> -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 di
from a coding perspective.
Bill
>
> -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 rea
D]
> Behalf Of Bill
> > Burke
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 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.
t; Burke
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 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 whe
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 secur
f Of Bill
> Burke
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 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
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
varia/src/org/jboss/aop/plugins/TxSupport.java
21 matches
Mail list logo
