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

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

MC can be embedded but we should be striving for independence from the containers. If a small form device already has an OSGi framework then we should be able to use it without embedding another framework. I want ESB on my phone :-) Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988786#3988786 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988786

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration

by mark.little＠jboss.com

Last time I spoke with Sacha/Adrian, it seemed like MC could be embedded in other containers too. Anyway, not an issue for the 4.0 release of ESB! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988784#3988784 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988784

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

Both MC and OSGi are lightweight and provide the functionality we would otherwise need to write. It is better for us to leverage these frameworks than it is to reinvent. Part of the initial requirements was the ability to be embedded in other containers so that we enable partners/users to take advantage of our ESB within their environments. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988780#3988780 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988780

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration

by mark.little＠jboss.com

Microcontainer is pretty lightweight. Last time I looked it was only a few classes. The inference seems to be that binding to the MC is somehow too heavyweight for us, but I don't see that at all. A default container, such as MC, would help a lot. Hence the reason for moving towards it in the next release. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988774#3988774 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988774

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : There's a really good book on the subject: I'm sure there are better ones out there ;-) Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988772#3988772 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988772

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by mark.little＠jboss.com

Why do you believe you need this support? JBossTS, like other commercial-grade/enterprise transaction systems, supports the TWO-PHASE COMMIT protocol. This means participants need to understand the prepare/commit/rollback messages they will get from the coordinator. Now obviously not ever participant in existance is 2PC-aware. In that case, as with other products such as Tux and CICS, we support LRCO. This allows a single 1-phase aware participant to be enlisted with a two-phase transaction as long as it is handled correctly within the protocol. If it isn't, or if you try to add more than one 1-phase aware participant, then you will potentially end up with non-atomic behaviour. Believe it or not, but that's not a good idea. Heuristic outcomes are bad enough, but at least with them you have durably recorded the results and can attempt some form or resolution, even if manually. There's a really good book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Java-Transaction-Processing-Implementation-Professi... So rather than rush into supporting something like this, I'd prefer to see a discussion about why it is needed in the first place. If there's a real need then we can consider it, but definitely a case of caveat emptor! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988768#3988768 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988768

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration

by tfennelly

Hey Kurt. I like your example config file there - it reads and has a structure which can be validated. On the other hand, I'd also be interested in seeing what the MC/MK can bring to this. I think doing this type of thing in a way that is consistent with other JBoss products is something that would be nice and a big selling feature. I'd imagine that this would be something that would appeal greatly to existing MC/MK users. Of course, this all assumes that it could meet our needs. Add to this the fact that MC/MK is already there and proven to work. If we didn't use this (e.g. because we wanted to stay "light"), what would we fill the gap with other than something we'd write ourselves i.e. effectively our own "lightweight" container, which we'd have to test, maintain etc. I think it's always easy to underestimate the LOE on something like this. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988767#3988767 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988767

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB DB setup

by mark.little＠jboss.com

+1 We definitely should support a DB setup out of the box, that does not require any changes to the configuration data. Obviously we'd need to make some assumptions, but if that improves the initial out-of-the-box configuration then that's good. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988757#3988757 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988757

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: What is the Attachment in the deployers projects represe

by vickyk

Well I looked more into the code , have checked the testsuite also . I can see 1) predeterminedManagedObjects Attachment 2) transientAttachments Attachment 3) transientManagedObjects Attachment types present in the AbstractDeploymentContext . What does these types represent ? | Attachments are metadata associated with a deployment unit | Where do you specify this metadata , is this what is specified in the deploymentdescriptor ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988753#3988753 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988753

19 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JMS Provider(s) Design - JBossMQ/JBossMessaging/ActiveMQ

by mark.little＠jboss.com

"kurt.stam(a)jboss.com" wrote : Well I'm back :). And it seems to me that this much-a-do about nothing. Like I said before we are not transactional on this release and we are not using JCA for this release. As far as Weston's question goes, we probably want JCA support in the MC going forward, so we can use that, in combination with JBossTS - like Mark just said. +1 I'd like to see JCA support in MC so we can continue with a lightweight approach. Not sure when/if that is on the JCA plans though. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988750#3988750 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988750

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