April 2007 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Other JBoss Development Design] - Re: possible bug in run.sh on Solaris

by quentena

Bug report submitted: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-4287 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033847#4033847 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033847

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: Cleaning up the jbossxb projects

by alex.loubyansky＠jboss.com

No problem, I'll do it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033841#4033841 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033841

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: Cleaning up the jbossxb projects

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

If I look at http://fisheye.jboss.com/browse/JBossCommon/jbossxb/branches/1_0/main/jav... it says the root was created from trunk/jbossxb/trunk/src/main/java/org/jboss/xb/QNameBuilder.java so I must have messed up the source url. I don't see any changes going into this branch so we just need to delete it an create it correctly from the tag. If you don't want to recreate it I will. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033840#4033840 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033840

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: 2.2.0.GA/component-info.xml still depends on tomcat 5.5.

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

"tom.elrod(a)jboss.com" wrote : At that point, assume jbossas will switch to using the remoting components instead of the whole remoting distro as is done now, right? Yes. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033837#4033837 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033837

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: Cleaning up the jbossxb projects

by alex.loubyansky＠jboss.com

Yes, it's the commit msg. Not sure about the svn command to check that. The as405 branch doesn't support global model groups. The trunk does. If the SchemaBinding has an instvar 'groups' the version supports global model groups. 1.0.0.CR9 is a tag on as405 branch and doesn't support global model groups. But the branch/1_0 does. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033831#4033831 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033831

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: 2.2.0.GA/component-info.xml still depends on tomcat 5.5.

by tom.elrod＠jboss.com

This was my fault. I have commented it out now. As of 2.2.0 release there are the different remoting components within the repository as well (i.e. remoting-core, remoting-http, etc.). Right now, the http invokers only work with tomcat jars so is why we have the remoting-http. Ron is working on a jbossweb alternative. At that point, will be able to have remoting-http-tomcat and remoting-http-jbossweb instead of the remoting-http. At that point, assume jbossas will switch to using the remoting components instead of the whole remoting distro as is done now, right? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033827#4033827 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033827

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - 2.2.0.GA/component-info.xml still depends on tomcat 5.5.15

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

The remoting/2.2.0.GA/component-info.xml is still declaring a dependency on the apache-tomcat 5.5.15 container: | <import componentref="apache-tomcat"> | <compatible version="5.5.15"/> | </import> | I thought this was getting pulled out. We cannot have the dependency for any remoting going into jboss5. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033805#4033805 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033805

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: Cleaning up the jbossxb projects

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

It should have been from the https://svn.jboss.org/repos/common/jbossxb/tags/1.0.0.CR9/ tag, but looking at http://fisheye.jboss.com/changelog/JBossCommon/jbossxb/branches/1_0?cs=2285 it does not list the source url of the copy. What your showing is the commit msg? Is there a way to validate what the source of the copy is after the fact? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033802#4033802 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033802

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Managing JMS using JMS

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBMESSAGING-934 I'm waiting Tim Fox to come back from vacation before saying anything on this. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033758#4033758 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033758

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Migration to maven

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"pgier" wrote : I changed the aop dependency so that it does not transitively include jboss-container, and jboss-dependency. The versions I am downloading still have them included albeit at version 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT. There is no present conflict between those and the MC dependencies but the potential still exists. "pgier" wrote : Do you have some ideas for a better long term solution? My understanding of the 2.0.5 transitive dependency resolution is that it depends on two factors - the depth of the dependency, in other words how many indirects in the chain - the order in which they are encountered, for those at the same depth Precedence goes to the dependency with the shortest path and, for those at the same depth, the one encountered first. There are three possible solutions that I can think of - declare the dependency - declare peer projects prior to other dependencies - specify exclusions on the other dependencies I do not believe the second solution is a good one as it relies on the depth of the dependency. I would therefore suggest explicit declaration or exclusions. Exclusions would look as follows <dependency> | <groupId>jboss</groupId> | <artifactId>jboss-aop</artifactId> | <version>2.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version> | <exclusions> | <exclusion> | <groupId>jboss</groupId> | <artifactId>jboss-dependency</artifactId> | </exclusion> | </exclusions> | </dependency> | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4033712#4033712 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4033712

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums April 2007