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

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: UserTransaction over iiop

by jhalliday

I guess we need to distinguish between doing remote (i.e. client side) transaction control for what are really non-distributed tx vs. doing real distributed tx. The code in question is the former, with an iiop transport. Similarly there is a default UserTransaction implementation that provides client-side control to the JTA (over the old jboss remoting?) For real JTS e.g. using AS with JBossTS JTS, the client side UserTransaction implementation will need to be different. I agree the existing code can be copied back, so long as it's abstracted by some API so we can replace it with a different one when integrating the JBossTS JTS. That may be as simple as registering a different object in JNDI. The question of how JTS like tests i.e. tx over IIOP should work in AS is a whole other can of worms, I'll start a new thread for that. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091685#4091685 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091685

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - UserTransaction over iiop

by adrian＠jboss.org

In jboss-head Francisco has deleted the code that does the UserTransaction over iiop. This is not real JTS, it just a way to attach the server side transaction id to the client thread and pass it with every invocation to the server. This code works in 4.2 with the new transaction manager (see txpropiiop testcase) so I'm not sure why this was deleted? I've removed the txpropiiop test from jboss-head since it no longer compiles. I think we should just copy back the 4.2 stuff if it really is working. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091681#4091681 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091681

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by adrian＠jboss.org

Why don't you just create a "FirstAvailable2" policy and make it the default, then people can revert to the old policy if they want to use older clients. You can even backport FirstAvailable2 to earlier branches in future releases to minimize the problem. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091677#4091677 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091677

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - AS 5 interoperability rules

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

What are the interoperability rules for AS 5? JIRA http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-4802 suggests a change to a load balance policy that will break interoperability with earlier releases. Is this impermissible? Is it permissible to create new (i.e. replacement) load balance policy classes; i.e. require a 4.x client to have them on the classpath? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091673#4091673 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091673

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Principal implementations in metadata project

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

I'm changing the metadata to use strings. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091672#4091672 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091672

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: ManagedProperty value type

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

When I originally wrote the tests I was using the simple java types. These all should be MetaValues now. Its an open ease of use issue on whether we allow simple java types and convert them. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091671#4091671 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091671

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - ManagedProperty value type

by alesj

What's the idea behind value's type in ManagedProperty? Since I see we are mixing the usage. For getValue we are expecting SimpleValue | assertEquals("jndi-name", SimpleValueSupport.wrap("DefaultDS"), p.getValue()); | but for setValue we push plain value | ManagedProperty minSize = props.get("min-pool-size"); | minSize.setValue(new Integer(13)); | How do you then know what is value's type? Or is the code that should change server side value to SimpleValue still missing? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091669#4091669 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091669

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Principal implementations in metadata project

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

Additionally the meta data view of method permissions is a set of strings. It is the container that may take the approach of a group principal for a set of roles IMHO. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091650#4091650 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091650

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Principal implementations in metadata project

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

I do not think there is any usage of BeanMD.getMethodPermissions in any of our interceptors (which typically inspire custom interceptors). So as you said, this particular method call is not being used external to JBAS official code. I prefer the string approach. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091645#4091645 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091645

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Principal implementations in metadata project

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

Yes, but if we want the existing BeanMetaData api to be backward compatible it needs to keep the set of principals. This is only being used by the Container.getMethodPermissions in the jbossas codebase, so we could argue its not part of the public metadata api, and add the jbossxb principal creation to the ejb container. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091639#4091639 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091639

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