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

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: Remoting sources?

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

FYI, we do have a ticket out there to move Remoting to SVN but it still isn't on the schedule as far as I know. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091490#4091490 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091490

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: Exception propagation using HTTP servlet transport on 1.

by dlarsson

When will this code become available? It would also be great if the ServerInvokerServlet could set the http header NoThrowOnError to true. I'm running JBoss 4.2.1 with the same problem... Regards David View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091483#4091483 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091483

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: (O/T) JobExecutor enhencement proposition to allow 3rd f

by kukeltje

What I (personally) want to prevent is re-inventing the at least a complex wheel with the jobscheduler instead of using/extending jms just because some people do not want to use an appserver. I'm not against spring, but I've seen implementations of systems much more complex/wired just to prevent using MDB's. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091478#4091478 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091478

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Security on JBoss] - Authentication and role mapping on more than two Db tables

by lition

Hi all, I'm trying to implement a customized impelentation of LoginModule similar to the DatabaseServerLoginModule in JBoss AS 4.2.1 GA. It must be based on 5 tables in order to add users to groups and associate a role policy to every group. Here follows the sql code for tables: CREATE TABLE `groups` ( `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment, `group_name` varchar(32) NOT NULL, `group_description` varchar(255) default NULL, `parent_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0', PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=7 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; CREATE TABLE `groups_has_roles` ( `group_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL, `role_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL, `assignment_date` timestamp NULL default CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, PRIMARY KEY (`group_id`,`role_id`), KEY `groups_has_roles_FKIndex1` (`group_id`), KEY `groups_has_roles_FKIndex2` (`role_id`), CONSTRAINT `groups_has_roles_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`group_id`) REFERENCES `groups` (`id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION, CONSTRAINT `groups_has_roles_ibfk_2` FOREIGN KEY (`role_id`) REFERENCES `roles` (`id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; CREATE TABLE `groups_has_users` ( `data_inizio` date NOT NULL, `user_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL, `group_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL, `data_fine` date default NULL, `note` text, PRIMARY KEY (`data_inizio`,`user_id`,`group_id`), KEY `groups_has_users_FKIndex1` (`group_id`), KEY `groups_has_users_FKIndex2` (`user_id`), CONSTRAINT `groups_has_users_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`group_id`) REFERENCES `groups` (`id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION, CONSTRAINT `groups_has_users_ibfk_2` FOREIGN KEY (`user_id`) REFERENCES `users` (`id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; CREATE TABLE `roles` ( `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment, `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL, `is_valid` tinyint(1) NOT NULL default '1', PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=7 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; CREATE TABLE `users` ( `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment, `codice_fiscale` char(16) NOT NULL, `username` varchar(50) NOT NULL, `password` varchar(32) NOT NULL, `email` varchar(255) NOT NULL, `reg_time` datetime NOT NULL, `last_visit` timestamp NOT NULL default CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, `attivo` tinyint(1) NOT NULL default '1', PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `utenti_FKIndex1` (`codice_fiscale`), CONSTRAINT `users_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`codice_fiscale`) REFERENCES `persona` (`codice_fiscale`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; Table implementation is similar to the one required to use the default DatabaseServerLoginModule, but I cant understand if it's needed simply a modified rolesQuery or a more complez LoginModule implementation. Thanks for answering View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091451#4091451 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091451

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: New KernelBus lookup failure

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : Why don't you just change the KernelBus to use the getInstalledContext() on the controller rather than the KernelRegistry. | I'm already done with the change - since it was a minor one and I didn't know KernelRegistry was going away. :-( But, yes, I can simply change KernelBus to look for installed contexts. :-) "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | The only usecase now for the KernelRegistry is the KernelRegistryPlugin | or direct registration (currently only the basic kernel objects do this) | which are features that could be added to the controller anyway. I added a BeanKernelRegistryEntry for those kernel objects in order to be able to use AttributeDispatchContext in ServiceInjectionValueMetaData (unifying the way we invoke propertys) - some Scott's code relies on invoking property on kernel objects. | protected KernelRegistryEntry createKernelRegistryEntry(Kernel kernel, Object object) throws Throwable | { | KernelConfig config = kernel.getConfig(); | BeanInfo info = config.getBeanInfo(object.getClass()); | return new BeanKernelRegistryEntry(object, info); | } | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091445#4091445 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091445

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: New KernelBus lookup failure

by adrian＠jboss.org

Why don't you just change the KernelBus to use the getInstalledContext() on the controller rather than the KernelRegistry. I want to deprecate the KernelRegistry in a future release, it's original purpose was to combine the MBeanRegistry and the POJO registry, but that hasn't been done and it is acutally unnecessary since I switched the design to make the integration at the controller rather than the registry. The only usecase now for the KernelRegistry is the KernelRegistryPlugin or direct registration (currently only the basic kernel objects do this) which are features that could be added to the controller anyway. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091440#4091440 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091440

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: So what does unification mean for the ejb containers

by wolfc

No I believe org.jboss.wsf.spi.serviceref.ServiceRefMetaData is the new one. org.jboss.ws.integration is an old package in jboss-metadata. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091434#4091434 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091434

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: So what does unification mean for the ejb containers

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

There are conflicting webservice service ref metadata in use by ejb3: org.jboss.wsf.spi.serviceref.ServiceRefMetaData - from jbossws-spi org.jboss.ws.integration.ServiceRefMetaData - from jboss-metadata The ejb3 layer is making use of the org.jboss.wsf.spi.serviceref.ServiceRefMetaData, while the metadata classes are using org.jboss.ws.integration.ServiceRefMetaData. Trying to compile the ejb3 module against the current jboss-metadata.jar results in conflcits: anonymous wrote : | [javac] /home/svn/JBossHead/jboss-head/ejb3/src/main/org/jboss/injection/WebServiceRefHandler.java:55: incompatible types | [javac] found : org.jboss.ws.integration.ServiceRefMetaData | [javac] required: org.jboss.wsf.spi.serviceref.ServiceRefMetaData | [javac] for (ServiceRefMetaData sref : xml.getServiceRefs()) | This is with the org.jboss.ejb3.metamodel classes deleted from the ejb3 project in favor of those in the jboss-metadata project. I assume the org.jboss.wsf.spi.serviceref.ServiceRefMetaData usage needs to be replaced with org.jboss.ws.integration.ServiceRefMetaData throughout the ejb3 project? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091421#4091421 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091421

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

"p.pasqual" wrote : Soo the good question can be more : what would be left to do to to permit to use Jbpm under all kind of architecture ? :-) | i think we already have a good starting point with jbpm 3. it's POJO based. but integrations with other projects like spring can be improved. that will be included in jbpm 4. we're unifying all the different use cases that we have for wiring and a context mechanism a la seam. for those use cases where spring could be used i would like to actually test that integration so that jbpm becomes naturally integrated with typical spring usages. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091414#4091414 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091414

18 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Clustering on JBoss (Clusters/JBoss)] - Re: JBAS-4766 Discussion thread

by dpospisi＠redhat.com

"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : Discussion of test failure reported in http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-4766 | | At this point you got failures. The kill/restart of node0 went OK, but then when node1 was killed 2 of 100 sessions were lost. | | Does that summarize it correctly? Yes, that's correct. However, that's not the rule. During other test runs, sessions were lost even when first node failed. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091398#4091398 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4091398

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