aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: JNDI and proxying
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:54:09 GMT
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:49, Alasdair Nottingham <> wrote:
> Alasdair Nottingham
> On 7 Jul 2010, at 00:47, David Jencks <> wrote:
>> I'm running into some problems with the proxies generated by the jndi implementation
(ServiceHelper ~line 342).
>> First of all, people sometimes register services under concrete classes rather than
interfaces.  Filtering these out of the standard java proxy creation will easily reduce the
exceptions from this code:
>>    for (String interfaceName : interfaces) {
>>      try {
>>        Class<?> potentialClass = serviceProviderBundle.loadClass(interfaceName);
>> //new check that class is actually an interface:
>>        if (potentialClass.isInterface() && pair.ref.isAssignableTo(owningBundle,
interfaceName)) {
>>          clazz.add(potentialClass);
>>        }
>>      } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
>>      }
>>    }
> Sounds reasonable.
>> Secondly, I recall rumors that the blueprint implementation can make proxies to classes
using asm or cglib.  Would there be problems using that sort of code here in jndi so classes
can actually be proxied?  Anyone have a pointer to where the blueprint proxy code is?
> It does, but I can't point you at where, someone else will be able to I'm sure.


At the bottom of this file, there are two classes, CgLibProxyFactory
and JdkProxyFactory which do the work.
The choice between those two factories is done in the getProxyFactory() method.

>> Thirdly,  there are some really badly designed services (javax.mail.Session) whose
implementation class per spec is final but that need to be in an EE jndi context.   Rather
than making these totally inaccessible through osgi jndi could we simply return the service
rather than creating a proxy?
> I'll need to check the what JNDI spec says, and some subsequent discussions on the EEG
mailing list, but I think this would violate the specification. I think the caller would need
to specify that they want proxies disabled, and then they would lose the handling of the OSGi
dynamism, which I do not think is a good idea.
>> thanks
>> david jencks

Guillaume Nodet
Open Source SOA

View raw message