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

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: JobExecutor enhencement proposition to allow 3rd framewo

by fady.matar

I have included the setters for the JobExecutor. That should be sufficient to expose the properties to external frameworks. Let me know if anything else is required. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092260#4092260 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092260

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [sim] Configuration of Experiment

by camunda

Okay, a small misunderstanding here ;-) I know what's a DSL, my problem was how to apply it here. But if I read it right between the lines, you mean to have a XML-based "DSL" to configure the scenarios. I wouldn't have called it DSL in this approach, but I think you can. But the name DSL maybe strengthen the idea to make the scenario description a bit more general, no tied to jPDL or even jBPM, but "only" for simulation scenarios of business processes. Basically, I like this idea, but I think I prefer a two way approach then: Embedding in the process definition (namespaces or not) for fast and easy use, and an own scenario description XML file (some kind of DSL if you wish) for more complex scenarios (information there override the "inline" configuration). I think, this would be a good solution, easy but also powerful. One additonal thought: The external scenario description is a good idea for an addtional reason: When porting simulation to jbpm 4 with different languages, it is maybe not so easy to embedd stuff in BPEL or XPDL process descriptions like it is now in jPDL. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092255#4092255 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092255

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: Maven Documentation

by anders3

Beautiful It works right out of the box /Anders PS: The groupid seems well selected The artifactid are "long", could be shorter The sources seens located the maven way... beautiful Even tests run .... good... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092250#4092250 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092250

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - @XmlElementWrapper/@XmlElements

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

I'm trying to use @XmlElementWrapper/@XmlElements to create the ear modules, but its not parsing as expected. I created a simple test in jbossxb that is also failing to parse. See the org.jboss.test.xb.builder.object.element.wrapper.test.WrapperUnitTestCase testFooWrapper fails with: anonymous wrote : | Caused by: org.jboss.xb.binding.JBossXBRuntimeException: float not found as a child of bar | at org.jboss.xb.binding.sunday.unmarshalling.SundayContentHandler.startElement(SundayContentHandler.java:370) | at org.jboss.xb.binding.parser.sax.SaxJBossXBParser$DelegatingContentHandler.startElement(SaxJBossXBParser.java:402) | at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.startElement(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.xinclude.XIncludeHandler.startElement(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLNSDocumentScannerImpl.scanStartElement(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl$FragmentContentDispatcher.dispatch(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanDocument(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XMLParser.parse(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.parse(Unknown Source) | at org.apache.xerces.jaxp.SAXParserImpl$JAXPSAXParser.parse(Unknown Source) | at org.jboss.xb.binding.parser.sax.SaxJBossXBParser.parse(SaxJBossXBParser.java:180) | ... 22 more | testFoo2Wrapper is essentially the same, but Foo2 has a parameterized items property. This fails with: anonymous wrote : | Caused by: java.lang.InstantiationException | at sun.reflect.InstantiationExceptionConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(InstantiationExceptionConstructorAccessorImpl.java:30) | at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:494) | at org.jboss.reflect.plugins.introspection.ReflectionUtils.newInstance(ReflectionUtils.java:136) | at org.jboss.reflect.plugins.introspection.ReflectConstructorInfoImpl.newInstance(ReflectConstructorInfoImpl.java:104) | at org.jboss.joinpoint.plugins.BasicConstructorJoinPoint.dispatch(BasicConstructorJoinPoint.java:80) | at org.jboss.beans.info.plugins.AbstractBeanInfo.newInstance(AbstractBeanInfo.java:222) | at org.jboss.beans.info.plugins.AbstractBeanInfo.newInstance(AbstractBeanInfo.java:216) | at org.jboss.xb.spi.AbstractBeanAdapter.construct(AbstractBeanAdapter.java:115) | ... 41 more | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092236#4092236 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092236

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: When is there an EJBObject?

by ALRubinger

Would you then consider 1058 to be an invalid case that we shouldn't support? I do have a fix for it in my local, ready to go once confirmed that it's what we'd like. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092230#4092230 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092230

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Proxy Based POJOs (No AOP) in POJO Cache

by jason.greene＠jboss.com

"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : Wasn't JBoss AOP going to offer generated proxies as an alternative to manipulating bytecode at some point? Is this already there? Or am I completely off the mark? :-) | Yes we already use them today for collections. Although it doesn't really matter what the proxy framework is. anonymous wrote : | I think having options is always valuable. The JavaBean standard is not a huge deal - I think people should follow this anyway. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092228#4092228 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092228

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Proxy Based POJOs (No AOP) in POJO Cache

by jason.greene＠jboss.com

"bela(a)jboss.com" wrote : I don't like this approach, as it defeats the uniformity of byte code instrumentation. I always disliked that - although we do instrument user classes - we cannot do the same for collections, so that's where we use AOP proxies. | I'd prefer a uniform approach. Having to writter getters and setters in one case and being able to use complete POJOs in another is cumbersome IMO. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, to be honest, my initial reaction to this request was pretty much the same. I agree that the AOP approach is better. I also don't like introducing confusion, and I have a feeling that having to reget proxy objects after they are attached will do exactly that. However, if there is enough community demand for this, especially enough that someone is willing to submit the code to do it, provided the final patch looks good, and doesn't over complicate the code base, I'm ok with making some kind of option for it. -Jason View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092227#4092227 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092227

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: When is there an EJBObject?

by bdecoste

No, that is what I am suggesting - if there is a home interface, then we fully support 2.1 views. The trigger would be the home interface, not an explicit extends EJBOBject. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092201#4092201 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092201

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: When is there an EJBObject?

by wolfc

"bdecoste" wrote : I'm wondering what the trigger should be for us to support a 2.1 view (EJBObject)? Maybe just the existence of a Home interface? Is that better than explicit extends EJBObject? Then the question is can a home interface return a non EJBObject from it's create method? (See failing unit test.) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092186#4092186 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092186

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: AS 5 interoperability rules

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

Yeah, I don't mind that so much; just the way it is. But, the interface that exposes the new invocation model is going to have to extend the interface that uses the old model, which is ugly. Otherwise we break older clients. The LoadBalancePolicy is an instance field in the 4.x EJB3 StatefulClusteredProxy and StatelessClusteredProxy; change the type of the field and serialization will break. Hmm; will it? If the policy actually serialized with the proxy implements the old interface, will old clients be able to deserialize it? I'll have to test. Unfortunately the proxies don't implement Externalizable; if they did for sure it would work. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4092154#4092154 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4092154

18 years, 6 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 October 2007