negative on the negative.
> JMX is our component layer. Although AOP objects may
AOP for me is just a way to add interfaces and interceptors to an existing object.
> not go through a JMX "Invoker" (whether that be a
> connector or JBoss Invoker), we still want things
> like EJB to go through the JMX layer. This is
EJB is a particular case as it does have an mbean. Many objects will want the remoteness and not necessarily be mbeans. I think it is a mistake to say "only mbeans are remote". Many many objects will want remoteness.
Look at the end of the day there isn't much in this discussion. The logical name and the signature is what counts. We all pretty much agree on the signature (we are all already close to the detyped signature) the only difference would be the object name (JMX or purely logical) that gets embedded in client proxies and added to the invocation. In fact when I wrote the first implementation I remember allowing purely logical names.
In the case of JMX the logical name is pointing to an adapter that takes the generic Invocation, extracts the JMX name from it and call the JMX bus with the equivalent invoke() signature from the dynamic MBean. This is all bundled in the invokers today and in fact they are tied to JMX in that fashion. Adrian and I are steady on the fact that many invocation paths will still go without mbean stuff.
> because of redeployment. To provide 24/7, we need
> invocations to be blocked while a component is being
> cycled. In fact, maybe AOP invocations should go
> through JMX as well.
wow... no no no please.
it is a mistake. So you want to leverage the 24.7 idea? there are 2 ways with the EJB and generic
1- Make the 24x7 stuff an interceptor that reads a 'state' of the target. In the case the component has a JMX state associated to it then we are all set. Today it will be tied to it.
2- Do the move we are talking about. Make the invokers generic "Unified Invokers". Unified Invokers are still MBeans themselves they are components. But they only look up logical names and delegate to a real invoker. JMX ones will go through the same chain of command and you still leverage the existing code.
> P.S. Please move this discussion to forums....