Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EJBCLIENT-343 EJB invocation will not stay local if the application is deployed in a local serer and the Remote interface is used #432

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 7, 2019

Conversation

bmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

@bmaxwell bmaxwell commented Oct 7, 2019

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/EJBCLIENT-343

Current default does not prefer the local server instance and this can not be forced in server or applicationconfiguration, it is only possible to exclude the local instance.

@chengfang chengfang changed the title Ejbclient 343 4.0 EJBCLIENT-343 EJB invocation will not stay local if the application is deployed in a local serer and the Remote interface is used Oct 7, 2019
*/
public interface DeploymentNodeSelector {
final static Logger log = Logger.getLogger(DeploymentNodeSelector.class);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you replace this one with Logs.Main as well?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@chengfang fixed and updated PR

…to prefer local node 'jboss.node.name' invocations inside of a server
@chengfang chengfang merged commit ffca91c into wildfly:4.0 Oct 7, 2019
chengfang pushed a commit to chengfang/jboss-ejb-client that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2019
…to prefer local node 'jboss.node.name' invocations inside of a server (wildfly#432)
chengfang added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2019
…to prefer local node 'jboss.node.name' invocations inside of a server (#432) (#433)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants