geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject [aspects] Re: Reflection Bad, OO and direct Method invocation Good...
Date Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:10:12 GMT
let me subvert this thread a little...

for the future...

If  you step back a little and look again at the precompiled and 
dynamically aggregated containers, I think you would find that they 
could both  be decomposed into aspects in a pretty similar way. The 
difference is simply in the choice of how to implement those aspects.

The thing that I find exciting is that from only a little bit of reading 
around aspects it looks as if it will soon be possible (if it is not 
already) to weave the same set of aspects at either compile or 
deploy/run time. Whether the aspect guys will be able to be as efficient 
at deploy-time weaving as they can at compile-time is a matter for an 
aspect list, but I suspect that compile time weaved aspects will not be 
any slower than a custom compiled container and deploy-time weaving will 
be considerable more efficient than existing run time interceptor 
frameworks.

So, in short, I think that the gap between compile time and deploy time 
container composition is probably shrinking into irrelevance, which is 
good news as it means that both teams can concentrate on a single impl - 
competition is good, but right now I think it should be all hands on 
deck to get something out there...

Jules


Greg Wilkins wrote:

>
> Even if we are able to support two or more EJB containers, I would
> never recommend using different ones for development and deployment.
> That, as you say, is just asking for inconsistencies to cause grief.
>
> But some users may choose to give up the benefits of the dynamics
> during development for a compiled container - because either they
> really want/need every nano seconds of latency reduced or because
> their culture is opposed to dynamics on production machines.
>
> If there are really several diametrically opposed ways of doing
> EJBs - then it would be great if geronimo could support them all.
> But then I have little idea of the amount of work required to
> come up with AbstractEJBContainer.
>
> cheers
>
>
> Test Account wrote:
>
>> Greg,
>>
>>     Absolutely, that was the gist of what I was trying to say, albeit,
>> somewhat poorly.  You want the fast dynamic development deployment
>> capabilities while banging out endless refactorings.  But when it 
>> comes time
>> to deploy in a scalable environment you may need to eek every last 
>> drop of
>> performance, so may need the compiled skeletons.  It would be great 
>> to have
>> both.  The problem would be in guaranteeing consistency between the two
>> paths.  I wouldn't want to get differing behavior when running in
>> development from when running in production.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Wilkins" <gregw@mortbay.com>
>> To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 1:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Reflection Bad, OO and direct Method invocation Good...
>>
>>
>>
>>> I don't know if this falls into the "too much choice is a bad thing"
>>> arena, but would it not be good if we could have both a dynamic jboss
>>> inspired EJB container and a compiled EJB container (perhaps from
>>> or inspired by the JOnAS folks??).
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Greg Wilkins<gregw@mortbay.com>             Phone/fax: +44 7092063462
>>> Mort Bay Consulting Australia and UK.          http://www.mortbay.com
>>>
>
>


-- 
/*************************************
 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 * http://www.coredevelopers.net
 *************************************/



Mime
View raw message