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

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : Alternatively we could just forget it and do something useful? I could go on with this discussion a little further... (LOL) But lets do something useful! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055778#4055778 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055778

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by timfox

"clebert.suconic(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | A read only action :-) | | . That would be contradictory. If we take your previous definition of "action" as "something that changes state". Then "read only action" would expand as "a read-only something that changes state" which clearly makes no sense. So you need to come up with another definition. ;) Alternatively we could just forget it and do something useful? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055775#4055775 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055775

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : If your definition of an action is "something that changes the state of the object", then what would you call "something that does not change the state of the object". A read only action :-) Well.. as I said.. I don't mind if we change it or not... For me it was just a sign that JBossMQ and JORAM implemented this way. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055773#4055773 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055773

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by timfox

Actions don't have to change the state of the object they are acting on. E.g. asking what the time is, is an action but it does not change the state of the clock. Saying nothing is changed, is *absolutely* not the same as saying nothing happened. When I ask the time, or measure someone's height, then absolutely something happened (the thing that happened was that I measure their height and it gave useful information), but me measuring their height doesn't make their height change. If your definition of an action is "something that changes the state of the object", then what would you call "something that does not change the state of the object". View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055767#4055767 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055767

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: JBossTS Tx timeout (with CMT beans)

by mark.little＠jboss.com

You could be right, I haven't checked that. But I do know the majority of support cases we've had around the old TM and timeouts were due to it not rolling back. So the expectation is definitely that we should roll back asap (no good definition of asap ;-), but the old TM behaviour didn't match that. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055762#4055762 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055762

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : getClientID() is certainly an action on the connection Well.. I still think it's not an action, as the Connection would stay the same after that operaion... It's like a get property... nothing is changed... like nothing happened. But I don't want to arguee about that, as I don't really mind... I will just comment out those ClientID tests. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055759#4055759 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055759

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: JBossTS Tx timeout (with CMT beans)

by dimitris＠jboss.org

I think the executing thread was also interrupted. So if was stuck on I/O the rollback would be performed immediately after that. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055758#4055758 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055758

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | Well, that would be a different problem. The fix is trivial for that though. Yep.. it is. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055756#4055756 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055756

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by timfox

"clebert.suconic(a)jboss.com" wrote : | Well... I wouldn't consider checking for getClientID an operation... | The JMS javadoc talks about actions on the connection: "If a client sets the client identifier explicitly, it must do so immediately after it creates the connection and before any other action on the connection is taken. After this point, setting the client identifier is a programming error that should throw an IllegalStateException." getClientID() is certainly an action on the connection, I don't think you can argue it is not. Therefore it seems pretty clear to me the JORAM test is invalid anonymous wrote : | Ah... BTW... connection.start() is not setting the just created.. | Well, that would be a different problem. The fix is trivial for that though. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055753#4055753 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055753

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Invalid JORAM Test

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

"timfox" wrote : I would say the JORAM test is invalid. | | setClientID() is supposed to throw an exception unless it is the first operation called on the connection. | | In your case, you are calling getClientID() first, so it is correct to throw an exception: | | See http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/index.html Well... I wouldn't consider checking for getClientID an operation... JORAMTests aways tests if ClientID is already set... if not set by the provider it would set the ClientID. I would agree about that on real operations.. but not on getClientID. Ah... BTW... connection.start() is not setting the just created.. The following tests would fail: public void testSetClientAfterStart() | { | try | { | Connection connection = cf.createConnection(); | | //we start the connection | connection.start(); | | // an attempt to set the client ID now should throw a IllegalStateException | connection.setClientID("testSetClientID_2"); | fail("Should throw a javax.jms.IllegalStateException"); | } | catch (javax.jms.IllegalStateException e) | { | } | catch (JMSException e) | { | fail("Should raise a javax.jms.IllegalStateException, not a " + e); | } | catch (java.lang.IllegalStateException e) | { | fail("Should raise a javax.jms.IllegalStateException, not a java.lang.IllegalStateException"); | } | | } | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055752#4055752 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055752

19 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums June 2007