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

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: Integration between Jboss Portal with Seam and Facelets

by thomas.heute＠jboss.com

I already moved your other subject to the correct forum, please do not post multiple times. (And do not post user questions in the design forum) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091919#4091919 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091919

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Integration between Jboss Portal with Seam and Facelets

by danny.stephan＠gmail.com

Hi all, Is it possible to integrate JBoss Portal version 2.6.1 with Seam and facelets? Many thanks in advance, View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091918#4091918 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091918

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Getting runtime component name from attachment

by adrian＠jboss.org

"alesj" wrote : | Yup, my thoughts exactly. | But was somehow surprised this wasn't already the case. | The link to the Bus didn't exist until you created it. ;-) anonymous wrote : | Only deduction I see is what you suggested - if it isn't on the MP, then it should be taken from MO, which was set by MOC. That sounds correct (and logical :-) to me. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091915#4091915 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091915

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: Integration of different tx manager with AS (and EAP) bu

by adrian＠jboss.org

You can still run the JBossAS Testsuite from the other project, it should just be a case of invoking its ant's script from your ant script (perhaps passing different parameters - we could even "macroise" the test targets if you need to start an ORB for all test clients). It's a long standing issue that the testsuite is not very flexible or even as modular as it first appears. I guess this won't be resolved until we move to Maven? Whenever that is. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091914#4091914 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091914

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Getting runtime component name from attachment

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Your solution is far from OO. | :-) This was initial testing rubbish. "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | In fact, it should be on each ManagedProperty since there is no guarantee | one ManagedObject maps to one context on the bus. | e.g. The DataSource maps to four JMX MBeans (ConnectionManager, ConnectionPool, ConnectionFactory, JNDIBinder). Yup, my thoughts exactly. But was somehow surprised this wasn't already the case. | public @interface ManagementProperty | { | /** The description */ | String description() default ManagementConstants.GENERATED; | | /** The external name of the property. If undefined its taken | * from the property the annotation is on. | */ | String name() default AnnotationDefaults.EMPTY_STRING; | | /** The internal name of the property as it relates to metadata */ | String mappedName() default AnnotationDefaults.EMPTY_STRING; | | /** Whether this property is mandatory */ | boolean mandatory() default false; | | /** Whether to create a managed object for the property */ | boolean managed() default false; | | /** Whether to ignore this property */ | boolean ignored() default false; | | /** The views this property should be used in */ | ViewUse[] use() default {ViewUse.CONFIGURATION}; | | /** The class to use for the ManagedProperty implementation */ | Class<? extends ManagedProperty> propertyFactory() default NULL_PROPERTY_FACTORY.class; | /** The class to use for the ManagedProperty Fields implementation */ | Class<? extends Fields> fieldsFactory() default NULL_FIELDS_FACTORY.class; | /** The constraints, allowed values populator factory */ | Class<? extends ManagedPropertyConstraintsPopulatorFactory> constraintsFactory() | default NULL_CONSTRAINTS.class; | | } | How should this be added? Human touch only or is there something 'we' can do/deduct? Only deduction I see is what you suggested - if it isn't on the MP, then it should be taken from MO, which was set by MOC. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091912#4091912 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091912

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by adrian＠jboss.org

You need two different versions of the load balancing policy for the two different invocation models. The legacy EJB2 invocation is not going away anytime soon. At least until JavaEE drops support for the old EJB model or our EJB3 project takes over implementing the old model. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091908#4091908 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091908

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Getting runtime component name from attachment

by adrian＠jboss.org

Can you explain what MetaDataNameProvider is trying to do? Your solution is far from OO. If this is in the deployers, then you should be doing it from the components, each component deployer decides its own name for the components. String componentName = deploymentUnit.getName(); If this is from the ManagedObject stuff then the name should be provided by the ManagedObjectCreator in the ManagedObject somewhere. In fact, it should be on each ManagedProperty since there is no guarantee one ManagedObject maps to one context on the bus. e.g. The DataSource maps to four JMX MBeans (ConnectionManager, ConnectionPool, ConnectionFactory, JNDIBinder). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091904#4091904 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091904

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: Integration of different tx manager with AS (and EAP) bu

by jhalliday

I'm not suggesting we ship the JTS with AS, although we could consider it. However, because it's supported it needs better QA than it currently has. > 3) ran its own testsuite My point is that the JTS replaces the JTA for customers that use it. It may have additional tests, but it needs to pass all the regular AS testsuite ones too. The AS (or at least the EAP) should not ship unless it does. If the QA is separate it will remain a second class citizen and that's a asking for support trouble. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091902#4091902 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091902

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: Integration of different tx manager with AS (and EAP) bu

by adrian＠jboss.org

The difficulty is the license isn't it? Since it is GPL people should take an explicit decision to deploy it. e.g. we can bundle JTS in the distribution with an installer to ask if they want it or with JBoss5 it could be an option in the profile service configuration I'd recommend initially that the JTS test coverage on the appserver was a seperate project that 1) pulled in the JBossAS build 2) changed the config to use JTS 3) ran its own testsuite This avoids any license issues for the main JBossAS distribution. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091895#4091895 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091895

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: EJBTHREE-786

by ALRubinger

Also arising out of the changes from 786: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-1058 S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091874#4091874 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091874

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