November 2006 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Injecting properties (setters in the base class)

by alesj

"anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : I think the ReflectionUtils mechanism needs to be looked at in the mc codebase. | I just did a test with this code - and it works for me. | public class AnnotatedLifecycleBean extends SuperLifecycleBean | { | ... | | public class SuperLifecycleBean | { | private String test; | public String getTest() | { | return test; | } | public void setTest(String test) | { | this.test = test; | } | } | | <bean name="LifecycleBean" class="org.jboss.test.kernel.deployment.support.AnnotatedLifecycleBean" mode="Manual"> | <property name="test">juhuhu</property> | </bean> | This is tested on the current MC trunk - but I don't think property injection has changed recently. anonymous wrote : | Also the information that is held in DeployerConfig that is passed to TomcatDeployment is not getting unwrapped to set the properties on the AbstractWar/TomcatDeployment. Unwrapped? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984285#3984285 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984285

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Design of a Content Based Routing Service

by kurt.stam＠jboss.com

The XPath based DSL worked like a charm. It's all checked in. If you have time you should look at the ContentBasedRoutingUnitTest to see it in action. Also I now have a real example for the CbrProxyAction configuration. (Taken from qa: CbrProxyActionUnitTest So if your service need to use the CBR you can add it into the action pipeline like this | <action name="TestDefaultRouteAction" | process="route" | class="org.jboss.soa.esb.actions.CbrProxyAction" | service-category="MessageRouting" | service-name="ContentBasedRoutingService" /> | Where process set to: 1. routeAndDeliver (the default), this fires the rules, obtains destinations and delivers the message to this destination service. 2. route, files the rules and adds a collection of destination Services into the message, then at a later time you can call 3. deliver, which obtains the destinations from the message and delivers them. For now the rules are jared up into a jbossesb-rules.jar. We'll have to see if there is need to make this more dynamic. Thanks for your help Dave! And it's not too late for some last minute suggestions or comments. --Kurt View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984274#3984274 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984274

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Injecting properties (setters in the base class)

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

I am temporarily fixing this with a setter in TomcatDeployer. I think the ReflectionUtils mechanism needs to be looked at in the mc codebase. Also the information that is held in DeployerConfig that is passed to TomcatDeployment is not getting unwrapped to set the properties on the AbstractWar/TomcatDeployment. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984262#3984262 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984262

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: DeploymentInfo and DeploymentContext information

by vickyk

I was looking at this jira http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-3411 This pointed to the org.jboss.test.deployers.ear.test.EARNoAppXmlDeploymentUnitTestCase where I could see the DeploymentInfo getting used . View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984255#3984255 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984255

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: DeploymentInfo and DeploymentContext information

by vickyk

Why is then system-jmx present in the trunk code? https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/trunk/system-jmx/ This contains the ServerInfo class, also I saw some of the testsuite having this which created the confusion. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984252#3984252 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984252

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Partial state transfer -when target root integration is

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : | Forget what I said earlier - it is very hacky and relies on how BR backup Fqns are built. Why is that hacky? IIRC, if the cache is configured for BR, *any* state transfer follows this pattern (please double check if I'm wrong): 1) Node that prepares state gets it from the main tree. 2) Node the receives state integrates it into a buddy backup subtree. If this is the case, the rules for determining whether Fqn translation needs to be done are clear, and can be encapsulated in the StateTransferManager. The rules for translating the Fqns are clear and the Fqn translation operation can be encapsulated in the BuddyManager. I don't see any reason the translation needs to be embedded in the JGroups string. Don't get me wrong; I'm not strongly opposed to embedding it; it's just that I don't think it's required, and can be avoided if there's concern it will prove to be a problem down the road. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984247#3984247 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984247

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Injecting properties defined in the base class

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

I see that the properties that are defined in the war deployer | <property name="defaultSecurityDomain">java:/jaas/other</property> | <property name="lenientEjbLink">true</property> | etc | are not getting injected into the tomcat deployer (Most probably because the setter for these props are defined in the AbstractWarDeployer). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984245#3984245 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984245

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Document where non-String FQN do not work, JBCACHE-838

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : Basically, Fqns containing {"test", "1"} will look the same as {"test", new Integer(1)} if serialized to Strings. How do you know which to deserialize to, to identify the region to apply the partial state to? What if they both exist in the same tree? Sure, that's a problem. But I think it's a documentable problem. And it exists at the Region level, which would typically be something an app developer would think about a little bit. Having two different region Fqn's that resolve to the same string would be sign of a stupid app design. Kind of a philosophical issue -- do you restrict what people can do because you're concerned people will do boneheaded things? I'm generally opposed to that, particularly when the odds of the boneheaded behavior are low. Of course if we can't solve technical problems like the String in the JG partial state transfer API, that's a different thing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984239#3984239 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984239

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: FtpClientUtil refactoring

by kurt.stam＠jboss.com

Looks good Bruno. Where will one configure which implementation one wants? In the PropertyManager? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984226#3984226 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984226

19 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Forms

by kukeltje

I did not mean keeping them in sync 2-way..... and not at alll develop a wysiwyg editor (look at exadel, they have some nice functionality, even in the free one) Robustnes sould be kept in mind, otherwise we get a lot of iritated users with comments like "What the F* happened to my form". I think we should think this over View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3984224#3984224 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3984224

19 years, 5 months

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 November 2006