geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: 1.1 progress
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:50:45 GMT
On Mar 20, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On 3/20/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think we are basically thinking of trying to eliminate using
>> strings or names as intermediate navigation aids and be able to get
>> the child objects directly from the parents.  I think you suggested
>> doing this early on in the console and I objected :-)... I'm
>> reconsidering.  I don't really see how this would work with remote
>> kernels, but maybe either it could work or its not important.
>
> I certainly have no fondness for ObjectNames.
>
> My only concern is that as we add clustering, I think we'll want a
> single console to be able to manage more than one server, so I don't
> think we should drop support for management from remote clients -- at
> least, not without a plan for how to bring it back later.  Would we be
> able to return proxies that work for remote clients?  Maybe have some
> plumbing to decode the object (proxy) to an ObjectName plus a set of
> interfaces (they all support this) on the server side, send that to
> the client side, and then re-wrap it with a new proxy on the client
> side before returning the value to the caller?

I think we need to make remoteable proxies like EJB uses.

> Also, we can't ever drop the String-returning-methods that JSR-77
> requires, but we could provide alternatives for all of those and
> convert all our extensions to use only object-to-object references
> instead of more name references.

I agree.  I doubt this is something we can do in 1.1.

-dain

Mime
View raw message