- 
        1. Re: local invoker behaviortimfox May 16, 2006 2:23 PM (in response to tom.elrod)From the usage within JBossMessaging, it would be nice if invocations on the reference threw an exception if the server had been stopped but I don't think this is a big deal. 
 More important I guess is to not have the client pinger and leasing enabled in the invm case (since they are pointless) but this is off topic I guess.
- 
        2. Re: local invoker behaviortom.elrod May 16, 2006 3:00 PM (in response to tom.elrod)Really just wondering if is ok for local invokers to behave differently from remote invokers? Since may not even know if is local or not within the code, may have unwanted side effects if they do not behave the same (like wanting to know if server shut down regardless of local or remote). 
 Since you are the only one to respond, you win. ;)
 Will have server invoker throw exception if invocation made when stopped/destroyed state. Will disable connection checking if is local.
- 
        3. Re: local invoker behavioradrian.brock May 16, 2006 3:16 PM (in response to tom.elrod)There are two issues I can think of where you would want 
 to know the "local invoker" has been shutdown.
 1) Firing the JMS ExceptionListener and serverside listener
 to say the client<->server is no longer there, even if it was
 an in-memory link.
 2) It would allow failover. e.g. The client connects to the local node
 but if that is removed it can failover to a remote node.
 In fact, both could probably be caught at higher levels.
 Since the issue is not really about the local invoker but whether
 the target service still exists on the other side.
- 
        4. Re: local invoker behaviorovidiu.feodorov May 16, 2006 3:29 PM (in response to tom.elrod)
 Personally, I would assume consistent behavior and rely on that. The fact that the server and client are colocated is not principally different from the situation when they are running in different address spaces. It seems logical to me that if the server has been shout down, an invocation into it would fail.
 So: a local invocation should fail on a stopped server, in my opinion.
- 
        5. Re: local invoker behaviortimfox May 16, 2006 4:23 PM (in response to tom.elrod)"ovidiu.feodorov@jboss.com" wrote: 
 Personally, I would assume consistent behavior and rely on that.
 Yes, with the exception of pinging. There's no point doing that in the INVM case.
- 
        6. Re: local invoker behavioradrian.brock May 16, 2006 4:39 PM (in response to tom.elrod)"timfox" wrote: "ovidiu.feodorov@jboss.com" wrote: 
 Personally, I would assume consistent behavior and rely on that.
 Yes, with the exception of pinging. There's no point doing that in the INVM case.
 It depends what the ping does. e.g. in JBossMQ it travels through
 the interceptor stack and into the server. So it also traps
 problems with the server being broken/removed (assuming it isn't
 trapped elsewhere). :-)
 The same might apply to the remoting stack?
- 
        7. Re: local invoker behaviortom.elrod May 18, 2006 10:42 AM (in response to tom.elrod)There is no extra logic hops being made within remoting for the connection checking or leasing. 
- 
        
 
     
    