[Deployers on JBoss (Deployers/JBoss)] - Re: Dynamically reordering of deployers
by scott.stark＠jboss.org
It should work. I'll test out ordering the JBossWebAppParsingDeployer relative to the WebAppParsingDeployer. When is the JAXWSDeployerJSE getting deployed?
Also, I think we need a notion of being relative to another deployer/deployer band. Right now we only have a notion of Deployer bands as a starting point, and its more typical that deployer x needs to be +/- another deployer rather than +/- one of the specified bands.
| /** The parser order */
| public static final int PARSER_DEPLOYER = 2000;
|
| /** The class loader order */
| public static final int CLASSLOADER_DEPLOYER = 4000;
|
| /** The postprocessing class loader order (usage: AOP) */
| public static final int POSTPROCESS_CLASSLOADING_DEPLOYER = 5000;
|
| /** The component order */
| public static final int COMPONENT_DEPLOYER = 7000;
|
| /** The real order */
| public static final int REAL_DEPLOYER = 10000;
|
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982713#3982713
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982713
17 years, 7 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: execution transitions, data flow and other associations
by brittm
For what it's worth, these are the methods of SharedProcessSession used in the solution listed above:
| public void saveSharedProcess(SharedProcess sharedProcess)
| public SharedProcess getSharedProcess(long sharedProcessId)
| public SharedProcess loadSharedProcess(long sharedProcessId)
| public SharedProcess getSharedProcess(ProcessInstance pi)
| public SharedProcess getSharedProcess(Token parentToken, String groupLabel)
| public Set getAvailableSharedProcesses(String processDefName, String groupLabel)
| public void createSharedProcess(ProcessInstance pi, String groupLabel, Token startedByToken)
| public SharedProcess attach(Token parentToken, String processDefName, String groupLabel, boolean createIfNoneAvailable)
| public void detach(Token parentToken, String groupLabel)
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982704#3982704
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982704
17 years, 7 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: execution transitions, data flow and other associations
by brittm
Actually, for Multi-parented processes (Shared Subprocess) I was thinking of something a little more integral. So many of the features that are needed are already being handled by the standard jBPM subprocess mechanism, such as variable passing, it would be a shame to not handle Shared Subprocesses the same way.
I built my solution with two action handlers, two peristable classes, and an access class:
ShareProcInstAH (on node-enter of the 'shared process node')
SharedProcess (hibernatable shared proc, contains: processInstance, groupLabel, startedByToken, sharedProcParentSet)
SharedProcessParent (hibernatable parent, contains: sharedProc, token, joinedDate)
SharedProcessSession (utility methods)
ShareProcNotifyParentsAH (on end state node-enter of the shared proc)
ShareProcInstAH configuration looks like this:
<state name='SHARED_PROC' >
| <event type='node-enter' >
| <!-- If this process is cancelled, or for some other reason must go on without
| the shared sub-process, it is this process's responsibility to break the
| relationship with the sub-process so that this process is not incorrectly
| signalled if and when the sub-process ends. -->
| <action class='com.talk.wf.pd.common.ah.ShareProcInstAH' config-type='bean'>
| <!-- The process instance type that this process will use as a shared
| sub-process. If an available shared sub-process instance already exists, this
| parent will register itself with that; otherwise, a new shared sub-process
| instance will be created. A shared process is avaialable if the shared process
| is of the specified type and the shared process has a 'sharedProcessGroup'
| variable who's value is equal to the value of this process's variable that is
| specified here under <shareGroupVar> -->
| <sharedProcDefName>Shared Proc</sharedProcDefName>
| <!-- The process instance variable that will be compared to the shared process's
| 'sharedProcessGroup' variable. If a new shared process is being created,
| this is the variable who's value will be stored in the shared process's
| 'sharedProcessGroup' variable. This defines the group of parents that will be
| sharing the single shared process. -->
| <shareGroupVar>orderNum</shareGroupVar>
| <!-- If a new shared process is created, which (if any) of the new shared process's
| parents can cancel the shared process. Valid values are 'initiating' and
| 'last remaining'. Default is that no parent can cancel the shared process -->
| <parentCanCancel></parentCanCancel>
| <!-- This parent will only create an association with an existing shared sub-process
| if that shared process instance has not entered or exited the specified Node.
| Whether the limitation is entered or exited is determined by the
| <joinBeforeNodeEvent> setting. The default value is the name of the shared
| process instance's start-state -->
| <joinBeforeNode></joinBeforeNode>
| <!-- Valid values are 'enter' and 'exit'. Default value is 'exit'. -->
| <joinBeforeNodeEvent></joinBeforeNodeEvent>
| <passInVars>someVar as sharedProcVar, someVar2 as sharedProcVar2</passInVars>
| <passOutVars>sharedProcVar as someVar, sharedProcVar2 as someVar2</passOutVars>
| </action>
| </event>
| <transition name='done' to='END'/>
| <transition name='_sys_redoNode' to='SHARED_PROC'/>
| </state>
I'd love to see something like the above configuration incorporated into the process-state. The only data I'm persisting that wouldn't fit nicely into existing jBPM entities would be the sharedProcParentSet; that would properly need to be a new table associated with ProcessInstance.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982700#3982700
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982700
17 years, 7 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: execution transitions, data flow and other associations
by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com
Afaict, the pattern that you reference (Multiple Instances without synchronization) doesn't have anything to do with the original topic. Namely, how to synchronize between two concurrent paths of execution without joining them.
Nevertheless, I do think that we can debate if our previous implementation of a milestone is really the milestone of vanderaalst.
What was implemented previously is a wait state based on the state of another concurrent path of execution. If the other concurrent path of execution has passed a certain point, the token in this milestone node just continues. If not, the token will wait in this milestone until the other concurrent path of execution reaches that point. When that happens, the original token will continue to execute from the milestone.
The milestone pattern is a bit different. There is says that the activity inside a node is executed depending on the state of a concurrent path of execution. So that doesn't involve wait states and recontinuation when the event is reached by the concurrent token.
I believe that was the argument that someone pulled once... Anyways, it's easy to see that because we manage the complete runtime data structure as an object graph, that we can indeed inspect the complete runtime execution state of the complete process instance when the process executes. That gives us the ability to do 'whatever we want' :-)
Have I rehabilitated myself ?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982671#3982671
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982671
17 years, 7 months
[Design of Security on JBoss] - NTLM Handshake(NegotiateKerberos)
by ramesh4u
I have a windows network (samba domain controller which intern uses the flat file system for datastore), I wanted my j2ee web application to authenticate using NegotiateKerberos. so i followed http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=NegotiateKerberos link to setup the test application. But i suppose
NTLM Handshake is not happening, So i think there is some problem in my configuration settings. Basically handle method inside "AdvancedWebCallbackHandler.java" is not getting called.
When i start Jboss i see following logs which suggest CallbackHandler is configured properly but it is not getting called.
DEBUG [ServiceConfigurator] CallbackHandlerClassName set to org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.AdvancedWebCallbackHandler in jboss.security:service=JaasSecurityManager
Can someone please suggest what may be the problem? I am pasting all the configuration settings below.
My configuration setup as follows:
Windows network domain name is LK
Samba domain controller ip 192.168.1.7
/conf/jboss-service.xml
<!-- JAAS security manager and realm mapping -->
<mbean code="org.jboss.security.plugins.JaasSecurityManagerService" name="jboss.security:service=JaasSecurityManager"
<attribute name="CallbackHandlerClassName" org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.AdvancedWebCallbackHandler
<attribute name="SecurityManagerClassName" org.jboss.security.plugins.JaasSecurityManager
<attribute name="DefaultUnauthenticatedPrincipal" anonymous
<!-- DefaultCacheTimeout: Specifies the default timed cache policy timeout
in seconds.
If you want to disable caching of security credentials, set this to 0 to
force authentication to occur every time. This has no affect if the
AuthenticationCacheJndiName has been changed from the default value.
-->
<attribute name="DefaultCacheTimeout" 1800
<!-- DefaultCacheResolution: Specifies the default timed cache policy
resolution in seconds. This controls the interval at which the cache
current timestamp is updated and should be less than the DefaultCacheTimeout
in order for the timeout to be meaningful. This has no affect if the
AuthenticationCacheJndiName has been changed from the default value.
-->
<attribute name="DefaultCacheResolution" 60
/mbean>
/conf/login-config.xml
<!-- SPNEGO test -->
<application-policy name = "SPNEGO">
<login-module code="org.jboss.security.auth.NegotiateLoginModule" flag = "required">
<module-option name="loadBalance">false</module-option>
<module-option name="domainController">192.168.1.7</module-option>
<module-option name="defaultDomain">LK</module-option>
</login-module>
</application-policy>
/WEB-INF/web.xml
<login-config>
<auth-method>Negotiate</auth-method>
<realm-name>SPNEGO</realm-name>
</login-config>
<security-role>
<role-name>LK</role-name>
</security-role>
WEB-INF/jboss-web.xml
<jboss-web>
<security-domain>java:/jaas/SPNEGO</security-domain>
</jboss-web>
WEB-INF/context.xml
<Context
<Valve className="org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.HttpServletRequestResponseValve"
/Context>
Thanks
Ramesh S
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982626#3982626
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982626
17 years, 7 months
[Design of Security on JBoss] - Re: Negotiate with Kerberos
by ramesh4u
I have a windows network (samba domain controller which intern uses the flat file system for datastore), I wanted my j2ee web application to authenticate using NegotiateKerberos. so i followed http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=NegotiateKerberos link to setup the test application. But i suppose
NTLM Handshake is not happening, So i think there is some problem in my configuration settings. Basically handle method inside "AdvancedWebCallbackHandler.java" is not getting called.
When i start Jboss i see following logs which suggest CallbackHandler is configured properly but it is not getting called.
DEBUG [ServiceConfigurator] CallbackHandlerClassName set to org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.AdvancedWebCallbackHandler in jboss.security:service=JaasSecurityManager
Thanks
Ramesh S
Can someone please suggest what may be the problem? I am pasting all the configuration settings below.
My configuration setup as follows:
Windows network domain name is LK
Samba domain controller ip 192.168.1.7
/conf/jboss-service.xml
<!-- JAAS security manager and realm mapping -->
<mbean code="org.jboss.security.plugins.JaasSecurityManagerService" name="jboss.security:service=JaasSecurityManager"
<attribute name="CallbackHandlerClassName" org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.AdvancedWebCallbackHandler
<attribute name="SecurityManagerClassName" org.jboss.security.plugins.JaasSecurityManager
<attribute name="DefaultUnauthenticatedPrincipal" anonymous
<!-- DefaultCacheTimeout: Specifies the default timed cache policy timeout
in seconds.
If you want to disable caching of security credentials, set this to 0 to
force authentication to occur every time. This has no affect if the
AuthenticationCacheJndiName has been changed from the default value.
-->
<attribute name="DefaultCacheTimeout" 1800
<!-- DefaultCacheResolution: Specifies the default timed cache policy
resolution in seconds. This controls the interval at which the cache
current timestamp is updated and should be less than the DefaultCacheTimeout
in order for the timeout to be meaningful. This has no affect if the
AuthenticationCacheJndiName has been changed from the default value.
-->
<attribute name="DefaultCacheResolution" 60
/mbean>
/conf/login-config.xml
<!-- SPNEGO test -->
<application-policy name = "SPNEGO">
<login-module code="org.jboss.security.auth.NegotiateLoginModule" flag = "required">
<module-option name="loadBalance">false</module-option>
<module-option name="domainController">192.168.1.7</module-option>
<module-option name="defaultDomain">LK</module-option>
</login-module>
</application-policy>
/WEB-INF/web.xml
<login-config>
<auth-method>Negotiate</auth-method>
<realm-name>SPNEGO</realm-name>
</login-config>
<security-role>
<role-name>LK</role-name>
</security-role>
WEB-INF/jboss-web.xml
<jboss-web>
<security-domain>java:/jaas/SPNEGO</security-domain>
</jboss-web>
WEB-INF/context.xml
<Context
<Valve className="org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.HttpServletRequestResponseValve"
/Context>
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982624#3982624
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982624
17 years, 7 months