January 2007 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comment is confusing in the websale example

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

I agree. Under Tom's proposed change for the task screen, the task form will appear in addition to a generic comment box. Perhaps in this case, the task form need not have a comment field at all. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998731#3998731 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998731

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: When should the webconsole mark tasks as started?

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

I'd love to be able to show "new" tasks differently from "started" tasks on the task list (much like how many email clients show a new message in boldface). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998730#3998730 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998730

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB

by weston.price＠jboss.com

I will take a look. Chances are one of us (either JCA or JBM) is getting in the way of each other. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998711#3998711 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998711

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Aspect integration to bootstrap classes

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

I think this would have to involve moving aop into the bootstrap, I will take a look first thing tomorrow View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998694#3998694 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998694

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Bug in transactional delivery in an MDB

by timfox

I have been looking at http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBMESSAGING-721 and have uncovered a bug in transactional message delivery with MDBs. A message is received transactionally in the onMessage method of a MDB and the tx is marked rollback only, but the message is not redelivered. What is happening is this: 1. JBoss Messaging receives message from destination (no tx at this point) 2. JBM calls onMessage on the MDB container 3. MDB container starts a global tx and enlists the session's xaresoource 4. The user's onMessage executes 5. The user set's rollback only 6. The MDB container rolls back the transaction 7. There is no redelivery since the message was received by JBM *before* the mdb container starts the transaction. This is a very well known issue and a result of a design flaw in the original JMS connection consumer design. It is well documented in Weston's favourite book ;), Mark Little's "Java Transaction processing, Chapter 5, section "applications server integration". Different app servers solve the problem in different ways. JBoss MQ, JBoss Messaging work by acting as a local transacted session when not in xa begin..end boundaries and then when XAResource.start is called, the work done in the local tx is converted into the work done in the new transaction (See MessagingXAResource.start) I have fixed this and added tests, however the above behaviour is incompatible with fixes Ovidiu did for: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBMESSAGING-410 ( // leave the session in a 'clean' state, the currentTxId will be set when the XAResource will // be enrolled with a new transaction. setCurrentTransactionId(null); ) Branch_1_0 revision 1317 (19/09/06) by Ovidiu which basically sets the current transaction id to null after a commit or rollback This breaks the MDB transactional delivery since because the current transaction id is set to null, there is nothing to convert. The problem here is that the desired behaviour for http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBMESSAGING-410 and for correct transactional delivery in MDBs seem to be fundamentally incompatible. For JBMessaging-410 - it wants an XASession to behave as non transacted when it is not enlisted in a global tx - but for correct MDB message delivery we want it to behave as a local session. My question is, is the requirement for JBMessaging-410 real? Weston - what should the correct JCA behaviour be here? Is JBMessaging-410 real or bogus and any ideas on how we can reconcile the two? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998690#3998690 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998690

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: JBoss TS JTA - unsetting current transaction association

by mark.little＠jboss.com

It is bad/broken design. Only going through TransactionManager/UserTransaction do you get thread-to-transaction association/disassociation. (Same as using Current in OTS). If you terminate the transaction directly through Transaction (equivalent to using the Terminator in OTS) then you the thread-to-transaction association is not modified. You'll need to either use TM/UT or do an explicit suspend afterwards on the calling thread. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998684#3998684 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998684

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - JBoss TS JTA - unsetting current transaction association

by timfox

If I do the following: | | txMgr.begin(); | | Transaction tx = txMgr.getTransaction(); | | tx.commit(); | | tx = txMgr.getTransaction(); | | assertNull(tx); | | The assertion fails (I would expect the tx.commit() to cause the association between the current thread and transaction to be broken). But the following passes: | | txMgr.begin(); | | Transaction tx = txMgr.getTransaction(); | | txMgr.commit(); | | tx = txMgr.getTransaction(); | | assertNull(tx); | | Is this behaviour by design? With the old JBoss JTA implementation both the above cases would pass View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998683#3998683 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998683

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: PojoCache uses a special node factory

by manik.surtani＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | | One thing I noticed is the Configuration.getRuntimeConfig() object now exposes the NodeFactory as a property. | | I added this so that the NodeFactory is constructed and registered when the Cache is created, and gets a reference to CacheImpl when constructed such that methods that call createNode() need not worry about passing in details such as node type (as this is gleaned from the configuration attached to the cache) or bother passing in a cache reference. anonymous wrote : | This opens up the possibility of having a specialized factory create specialized nodes for _JBossInternal_. For example, one whose data version is always 0, or that has a more complex structure for holding child nodes to avoid lock conflicts, etc. | This possibility always was there, even the way the NodeFactory was used before - and still is in JBC 1.x.y - as a Singleton. That's the whole purpose of a factory. The first step would be to identify how a _JBossInternal_ node would differ from normal nodes, wrt. concurrency with optimistic and pessimistic locking, data versioning and BR as well. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998681#3998681 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998681

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - comment is confusing in the websale example

by kukeltje

Since jBPM has the notion of generic comments (on the task level) it is very confusing that the "create websale order" task has a generic comment field but the "evaluate websale order" has a comment field belonging to the taskform itself. The first comment shows up on the comment tab, but the second is in the form for the third (fix...) task. Maybe the label on the form should change View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998600#3998600 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998600

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - When should the webconsole mark tasks as started?

by kukeltje

This topic is part of the web console feedback: http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JbpmConsoleFeedback Currently the tasks are never marked 'started'. There are several options - once the task form is opened - once the task is saved the first time (but what if not saved at all) - .... I think it should be marked started when the taskform is opened View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3998599#3998599 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3998599

19 years, 3 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 January 2007