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

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Issues with passivation of nested SFSBs

by bill.burke＠jboss.com

For a nested structure, again, I think we need the concept of ownership and relatively the same code that already exists with the proxy context. At first, the parent SFSB owns all the children. If a child is "touched" by an invocation, it must ping the parent to replicate the whole tree: parent and all its children. If the parent is removed, a child is picked as the new "parent". As for your concurrency problem. I don't think we should code for this and document that that scenario is not supported. SFSBs are supposed to be used by one client, not multiple clients concurrently. This will make things easier IMO. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008905#4008905 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008905

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Class dependencies

by bill.burke＠jboss.com

Yet another thing from Seam. Seam components can state that if a certain class is not in the classpath, then don't deploy them. Sound like an interesting feature? | <bean name="foo" class="org.drools.Shit" load-if-class-not-available="false"/> | I think this is another example of the "ON DEMAND" mode except that the user turns off the bean by removing "drools" from the classpath. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008904#4008904 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008904

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Precedence level

by bill.burke＠jboss.com

I'm looking at the Seam component model to see how it could be merged with MC. Here's an interesting feature they got. When you deploy a component, it can have both dependencies as well as a precedence level. Basically the precedence level is a numerical value of where in the chain the component should be deployed. Gavin uses this so that somebody could say: "I want this component deployed after all Seam BUILT IN components". Maybe we could translate this into logical groupings of beans: | <bean name="Foo" group="BUILT IN" .../> | <bean name="Bar" group="BUILT IN" .../> | | | <bean name="MyStuff"> | <depends-group>BUILT IN</depends-group> | </bean> | "MyStuff" would have a logical dependency to Foo and Bar through the "BUILT IN" tag. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008899#4008899 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008899

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - JBoss configuration build

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

If you run the create.jbpm.server.config ant task in jbpm.3/jboss/configuration, it deletes the whole jboss installation that is located at ${jboss.home}. If you set ${jboss.home} to be a non-existant directory, the build fails. Why is this directory required to exist if it is only going to be deleted? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008896#4008896 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008896

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: JBAS-1434 Part 2

by adrian＠jboss.org

Yes, the modern approach should be to bind connection factories into jndi as admin objects. You could then just reference the jndi name from the activation config. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008894#4008894 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008894

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Scoped beans deployment

by bill.burke＠jboss.com

Here's some notes I jotted down when looking at SEam: * Context/scope aware kernel - ability to define components and attach them to a scope - metadata would set in scope definition and not execute to expliclity created. - can inject between scopes. One scope can override another scope with bean definition. - almost "federated" but a little different as you can declare beans of different scopes in the same file. - maybe starting off with federation is the correct way. With a kernel having a parent and children kernels. - scope/context is a bit different than federation. You'd want the base template of the scope/context defined in bean.xml and you want to ask the kernel to create you a specific scope/context. So scope/context may be implemented via federation, but the kernel would have to know about the scope. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008893#4008893 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008893

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Scoped beans deployment

by bill.burke＠jboss.com

I was looking at Seam and their concepts of scopes. He has differently deployed components that are deployed statically, but are created as part of a particular scope: i.e. A Session or a Conversation. So, when a particular Scope is created (i.e. a Session) the component is instantiated and configured based on the component.xml file. In MC land, this would translate to describing each bean deployed to a particular scope and this meta cloned to a new kernel that finally installs the beans. It would be cool to get the things that make sense that are duplicated in Seam into MC so we can unify things. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008891#4008891 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008891

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Scoped beans deployment

by adrian＠jboss.org

The idea is to be able define a sub-kernel in the scoped metadata. | Kernel kernel = MetaData.getMetaData(Kernel.class); | Then it needs two changes: 1) Either modifying the KernelController or create a subclass that understands delegation from sub-kernel to parent kernels A bean in a sub-kernel can depend upon a bean in a parent kernel but not the other way around! 2) Adding something to the kernel deployment that says you want your own private kernel for this deployment. Something like: | <deployment kernel="private"> | <bean ....> | </deployment> | Although I think a more general notion would come out of the work we need to do to define scoped metadata, probably by annotating the deployment or bean? e.g. define these beans in the jca subsystem scope | <deployment> | <annotation>@org.jboss.metadata.scope.Subsystem("jca")</annotation> | <bean ....> | </deployment> | For the metadata there already is a thread local to get the current context: | MetaData metaData = MetaDataStack.peek(); | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008883#4008883 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008883

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Bug in Sun compiler?

by adrian＠jboss.org

I originally found it with a standalone enum. I've reported it as a bug. I did find a bug report that asked for the opposite in apt (don't show the synthetic parameters) so I guess they hacked the compiler to not annotate the class properly. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008879#4008879 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008879

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: XAExpectionUnitTestCase Failures/JBossTS/JBoss 4.2

by adrian＠jboss.org

The issue came up because the old TM throws RollbackException when resources cannot be ended, the new TM throws IllegalStateException. This is not catered for in TxInterceptorCMT: | | try | { | // Marked rollback | if (tx.getStatus() == Status.STATUS_MARKED_ROLLBACK) | { | tx.rollback(); | } | else | { | // Commit tx | // This will happen if | // a) everything goes well | // b) app. exception was thrown | tx.commit(); | } | } | catch (RollbackException e) | { | throwJBossException(e, invocation.getType()); | } | catch (HeuristicMixedException e) | { | throwJBossException(e, invocation.getType()); | } | catch (HeuristicRollbackException e) | { | throwJBossException(e, invocation.getType()); | } | catch (SystemException e) | { | throwJBossException(e, invocation.getType()); | } | So the EJB caller doesn't get the same exeption "JBossTransactionRollbackException". This needs including in the following work: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-3633 as a general tidying up the exception handling logging with the changed TM semantics. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008872#4008872 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4008872

17 years, 11 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 January 2007