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

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: ServiceControllerMBean cleanup

by adrian＠jboss.org

"scott.stark(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Is there a point to keeping the org.jboss.test.system.controller.legacy as implementing ServiceControllerMBean? | This is so the tests can be run twice (against old and new implementations) to avoid breaking backwards compatibility. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989233#3989233 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989233

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: LDAP Support expectations

by bdaw

anonymous wrote : When is the first 2.6 Alpha release planned? http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBPORTAL?report=com.atlassian.jira.plug... anonymous wrote : Is the current codebase ready for testing the LDAP features? Not yet. There is org.jboss.portal.identity package with the old stuff from 2.4 that is currently used and identity2 with new stuff under development that is not plugged yet. There will be a swap when ready to test. For now there is only a testsuite. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989229#3989229 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989229

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: LDAP Support expectations

by olivwalt

"bdaw" wrote : So implementing it properly would end in grouping feature :) Hehe ;), some kind of "backdoor" grouping feature. When is the first 2.6 Alpha release planned? Is the current codebase ready for testing the LDAP features? Regards Oliver View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989227#3989227 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989227

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: LDAP Support expectations

by bdaw

anonymous wrote : Is it also possible to do a "many-to-one" mapping? Its harder because what you do if you want to assign such mapped role? So implementing it properly would end in grouping feature :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989226#3989226 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989226

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: LDAP Support expectations

by bdaw

anonymous wrote : I`m curious bout the 3.0 features, maybe my suggestions can help you a little. 3.0 discussions will happen in this forum so there'll be occasion to influence the roadmap for sure :) Thanks for offering help. Your experience can be very helpful. anonymous wrote : I would like to test your current implementation of release 2.6, although you mentioned... The upcoming alpha release should be more reliable in aspect of big changes in codebase. For the svn try: svn co http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/portal/trunk anonymous wrote : map an existing "business" group in LDAP, to a newly created portal Role on Portal side? Yes. So every time you refer to "Business Admin" on portal side it will refer to "Admin" LDAP entry. If this is helpful I can try to make it for 2.6. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989224#3989224 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989224

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: JBossTS/JBossJCA XA/Local transactions

by mark.little＠jboss.com

"bill.burke(a)jboss.com" wrote : +1 for Weston. | | Mark, why are you being so religious and academic. Weston states all valid cases for the feature. Transactions/unit of work is still extremely useful even without 2pc. Bill, this is not academic. Multiple one-phase resources in a two-phase transaction does not give you the consistency and atomicity guarantees. When you don't support recovery then it really doesn't make a difference. But when you do, it is wrong to support this and give the impression that this is a valid approach. This is not a transaction (where the definition of transaction is JTA, JTS/OTS, XA, WS-T ACID transaction). If we want to support this, then we should be doing so through some other interface, which makes it clear that the failure and recovery semantics are different. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989213#3989213 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989213

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: Purge Policy for Connection Pools

by djr667

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : It is an option, but I'm not sure why you would this? | Creating/Destroying connections is quite expensive compared | to using them for most things (that is the reason why they are pooled :-) If a Oracle 9i server is restarted then all the pooled connections are dead and useless. A purge in this case would remove the need to restart the JBoss server. We have tried, in our case, redeploying all web-apps and redeploying all *-ds.xml - but neither helps. It is unclear to me what would happen anyway to EJB3 injected datasources if you were to redeploy a *-ds.xml file. Dave View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989209#3989209 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989209

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Usage of OID on ConnectionFactories

by timfox

I don't understand what you're trying to do, the whole point of using the connection factory name when creating the connection was to avoid passing through the object id. But if you're going to pass through the connection factory name instead, what's the point? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989205#3989205 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989205

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: LDAP Support expectations

by olivwalt

Hello bdaw, thanks for your reply. I`m curious bout the 3.0 features, maybe my suggestions can help you a little. Also i´m no out of the world and you can contact me anytime, cause i`m quite familiar with the SAP`s Netweaver implemtation. Right now we, i mean our company, are still in evaluation phase for new project, and your portal solution is most promising to me. I would like to test your current implementation of release 2.6, although you mentionedanonymous wrote : codebase is still in a state of flux a little. But get trouble to check out the current source with svn. What do i missing?Error: REPORT request failed on '/repos/portal/!svn/vcc/default' | Error: REPORT of '/repos/portal/!svn/vcc/default': 400 Bad Request (http://anonsvn.jboss.org) Can i understand the anonymous wrote : add one-to-one mapping of group to role in RoleModule, map an existing "business" group in LDAP, to a newly created portal Role on Portal side? That would be great, so i can keep the LDAP clean and portability to to newer relases will be much easier, if/when you implement the grouping feature. Is it also possible to do a "many-to-one" mapping? Regards Oliver View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989201#3989201 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989201

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Usage of OID on ConnectionFactories

by timfox

The existing unique id is the jndi name. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3989199#3989199 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3989199

19 years, 4 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