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

[Design of JBoss Labs] - Re: Productization metrics for JEMS Matrix

by damon.sicore＠jboss.com

I think adding those booleans to the project.xml is a good place to start, and each of the booleans mentioned seem reasonable. Let's start with those. Ideally, we'd have a portlet that product managers can use to set these values and maybe track productization for each project. Specifically, product managers are associated with each project--or rather, those projects that can be productized. We need to make it easy for them to add productization data. They won't be keen on using xml to do this. This is something we'll have to build an interface for. And, like the contributor's agreement portlet, we'll have special product manager roles which enable the portlet. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968756#3968756 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968756

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by ovidiu.feodorov＠jboss.com

timfox wrote : | Because an XASession is supposed to be transactional and it's transactonal state transitions are supposed to be determined by the transaction manager invoking methods on it's XAResource. | XASession is supposed to be transactional only if its XAResource is enrolled in a transaction. This is not the case for the situation we discuss. There's no active JTA transaction at the time of session creation. The transaction manager cannot modify the state of the session, since there's no association with any transaction. Hence, the specific session we talk about is non-transactional (even if the object instance associated with the session implements XASession. It's the same way as saying that an object that implements Runnable must have its run() method executed by a thread at all times). timfox wrote : | JBoss MQ is adding an extra semantic by saying, as well as the above, if the XASession is not enlisted in any transaction it should act non transactionally. | In my opinion JBossMQ is just adding common sense. timfox wrote : | As an analogy, if you obtained an XA database connection from Oracle but forgot to enlist it in a transaction, then did some database operations, you would be suprised if you discovered it had gone into auto commit mode. | I wouldn't be surprised, actually. Can you tell exactly what's the behavior of a XA database connection in this circumstances? timfox wrote : | But that is exactly what you are expecting a jms xa connection to do. | Yes, this is what I expect. None of us was able to produce spec paragraphs confirming or proving invalid our assumptions. How about trying the reference implementation? That would be the next logical step. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968753#3968753 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968753

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by timfox

Because an XASession is supposed to be transactional and it's transactonal state transitions are supposed to be determined by the transaction manager invoking methods on it's XAResource. JBoss MQ is adding an extra semantic by saying, as well as the above, if the XASession is not enlisted in any transaction it should act non transactionally. This is not a semantic of the XASession as specified in the JMS spec. As an analogy, if you obtained an XA database connection from Oracle but forgot to enlist it in a transaction, then did some database operations, you would be suprised if you discovered it had gone into auto commit mode. But that is exactly what you are expecting a jms xa connection to do. To me that seems counter intuitive (and possibly dangerous). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968749#3968749 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968749

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS issues

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

I'll take a look when I get a chance latter tonight. I assume this is in the MC_VDF_WORK branch? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968748#3968748 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968748

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by ovidiu.feodorov＠jboss.com

timfox wrote : | Personally I think JBoss MQ behaviour is wrong | Why. Could you please elaborate on this? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968746#3968746 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968746

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Using preinstantiated collections, maps (JBMICROCONT-35)

by alesj

anonymous wrote : | Reopened since this isn't working. | | The only reason the test passed is because the default constructor | was changed to set preinstantiated to true. | | If it uses the default constructor then it is not using preinstantiated object. Will look into this one. anonymous wrote : | I've also uncommented the equivalent tests for sets and list. | We could also do with array and map tests. | I already added tests for arrays and maps, but forgot about lists and sets. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968745#3968745 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968745

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by timfox

This is really a religious argument. Personally I think JBoss MQ behaviour is wrong, but I also concede that we should change the behaviour to be the same as MQ but only so as not to break users stuff. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968744#3968744 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968744

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by ovidiu.feodorov＠jboss.com

Pissing off a lot of users and breaking their applications is always, of course, a source of major concern. However, before that we should carefully consider what's the correct way of implementing something. If the old behavior is wrong, then I am afraid that we should take the risk. Fortunately, this seems not to be the case. It appears to me that we just simply need to fix JBM and let the users and their applications be. The fact that java:/JmsXA is used in inappropriate circumstances has no bearing on the case at hand. The system should work correctly even if (slightly) abused. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968742#3968742 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968742

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by timfox

Interesting. I'm not sure the spec is going to help here. I think many users have become lazy and use JmsXA for everything (i.e. stuff which doesn't require JmsXA) which results in them not really knowing the difference between it and the standard JMS connection factories. If we want them to be able to let them continue using JmsXA for non transactional stuff then we will need to change the messaging behaviour to be the same as JBossMQ. So the answer, is yes, we probably need to change it or risk pissing off lots of users and breaking their apps :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968738#3968738 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968738

18 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBMESSAGING-410 - Use of JmsXA in non transactional envi

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

The only thing that brought my attention was 14.4.7 from JCA. I'm not sure what is a Non-managed environment: anonymous wrote : Transaction Inflow in a Non-managed | Environment | Though the transaction inflow contract is primarily intended for a managed | environment, it may be used in a non-managed environment provided the | application that bootstraps a resource adapter instance is capable of functioning as a | resource manager. | In a non-managed environment, support for the transaction inflow contract is not | required. That is, the getXATerminator method of the BootstrapContext | instance may return a null instance. | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968736#3968736 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968736

18 years, 4 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 August 2006