geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: 1.1 progress
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:16:32 GMT
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?

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.

Thanks,
   Aaron

Mime
View raw message