Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <73C10A8E30ECD311ADAA00508B6693F008B7DBCC@cfukexch04.ws.london.cantor.com>
From: "Kington, Max" <mkington@espeed.co.uk>
To: "'geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org'"
	 <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: [JNDI] "Virtual Hosting"
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:43:27 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Aaron, 

This could be a function of the security provilages, in terms of visibility.
E.g. with a particular group of user logins to the directory, they are
associated
with a different underlying directory stores.

Max

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Mulder [mailto:ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu]
Sent: 08 August 2003 17:08
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: "Virtual Hosting"


On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Justin Ju wrote:
> just like server cluster, but some environment context may be shared among
> all these applications?

	Ideally, it would appear to each application that it was the only 
application running in the server, despite the fact that there may 
actually be 3 or 4 or a dozen apps running in the server.  So if an 
application crawls JNDI, it will see nothing but its own stuff.  If three 
applications each declare a DB pool called "Database", the bindings won't 
fail or replace other bindings, but instead each app will see only its own 
DB pool.  If a user can log in to application A (and it's JNDI space), 
that does not mean the user can log in to application B (or its JNDI 
space).  Like virtual hosting, in the sense that as far as each app is 
concerned it's the only app, whereas under the covers there may be loads 
of them.

Aaron