June 2009 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : | Definitely. | We have a deal ;) "alesj" wrote : | Just not the likes of changes made to DeploymentStage(s), | where we agreed we don't need them atm, but they still ended up in commits. ;-) I did these commits before our discussion. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240228#4240228 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240228

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by alesj

"richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | I won't but I hope I can always commit the tests reproducing reported MC issues ;) | Do you agree? Definitely. Just not the likes of changes made to DeploymentStage(s), where we agreed we don't need them atm, but they still ended up in commits. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240224#4240224 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240224

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Start process with form

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

Can you guys shed some light on this: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPM-2233 And come to an agreement (including API)? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240223#4240223 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240223

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : "richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | Please do *not* change+commit your code under MC projects. | | I'm not randomly changing your code, so I would appreciate if you're not changing mine as well. | | | I won't but I hope I can always commit the tests reproducing reported MC issues ;) | Do you agree? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240217#4240217 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240217

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : | Apart from the bug in pass-through deployers, | you still haven't given me any good explanation on why this is not OK. | I'm taking it back. This is OK. I already understood the domino sorting algorithm and thus see your point of view on this problem. "alesj" wrote : | You can disagree all you want, but until I'm convinced what you're saying is valid, | things are gonna stay as they are, and please do *not* change+commit your code under MC projects. | I'm not randomly changing your code, so I would appreciate if you're not changing mine as well. | Sorry for my commits. I was so sure I'm right and Domino sorting is so wrong ;) "alesj" wrote : If the ordering doesn't exactly fit your needs, this doesn't always mean that it doesn't fit others as well. | Your fix is correct. Now all my use cases are working as expected. Thanks for the fix Ales! "alesj" wrote : | We can always agree on extra hooks, that would help you validate things, | but some more drastic change might break too many things for us in existing AS deployers. | And mocking around with stages definitely sounds like asking for trouble. | Yes I know. You're right. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240215#4240215 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240215

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

"richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with you :( Do things properly otherwise don't do it at all! I take these spicy words back. I was absolutely wrong! Your Domino sorting algorithm and the fix you did is correct Ales;) I highly apologize. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240214#4240214 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240214

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by alesj

"richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with you :( Do things properly otherwise don't do it at all! Apart from the bug in pass-through deployers, you still haven't given me any good explanation on why this is not OK. You can disagree all you want, but until I'm convinced what you're saying is valid, things are gonna stay as they are, and please do *not* change+commit your code under MC projects. I'm not randomly changing your code, so I would appreciate if you're not changing mine as well. If the ordering doesn't exactly fit your needs, this doesn't always mean that it doesn't fit others as well. We can always agree on extra hooks, that would help you validate things, but some more drastic change might break too many things for us in existing AS deployers. And mocking around with stages definitely sounds like asking for trouble. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240208#4240208 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240208

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deployers Ordering Issue

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : as "split" stage input/output is completely valid. | A case of that not being valid is too much impl detail and not a generic issue. Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with you :( Do things properly otherwise don't do it at all! View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240204#4240204 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240204

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Consistent handling of HTTP response header across HTTP

by dward

How much freedom do I have here? Basically, how many people will I upset if message properties are no longer available under HttpMessageComposer.HTTP_RESPONSE_HEADER_MAP (http gateway) or HttpResponse.RESPONSE_KEY (http router)? I've been poking around and it looks like a pretty easy thing to homogenize it all, but what about people who have written custom actions specifically looking for those exact message properties themsleves? I guess I could leave them there *in addition* to always using ResponseHeaders in the message properties, but then the problem is 1) the message sizes would be bigger, 2) it would be downright ugly. I would like to just clean this up, and in release notes somewhere say, "if you're looking for HttpMessageComposer.HTTP_RESPONSE_HEADER_MAP or HttpResponse.RESPONSE_KEY, it ain't gonna be there no more". Thoughts? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240162#4240162 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240162

15 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Journal Cleanup and Journal Compactor

by timfox

"clebert.suconic(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | I don't see any reason to keep the transaction after compacting, since the record is already confirmed. | | +1. Also with any tx that has been rolled-back you can remove all the records. And with any prepared tx which has been committed you can remove the prepare record too. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4240138#4240138 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4240138

15 years, 6 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 June 2009