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

[Design of JBoss Web Services] - Re: RI tools dependency

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

Cool, that's excellent! View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009515#4009515 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009515

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by adrian＠jboss.org

"alesj" wrote : | | <policy> | | <scope/> | | <annotations/> | | <bindings/> | | </policy> | | How is this integrated with current MC xml, I don't see it :-(? Through the wildcard handling: | <policy xmlns="urn:jboss-policy:1.0"/> | The policy xml unmarshalling would create a BeanMetaDataFactory. This is something we could defintely make it easier to do. I'd like each project to define use case xml. e.g. instead of | <bean name="MyQueue" class="SomeQueueClass"> | <ugly-irrelevant-implementation-detail-config-here/> | |  | <property name="name">queue/MyQueue</property> | </bean> | The user would just write | <queue xmlns="urn:jboss-messaging:1.0" | name="queue/MyQueue"/> | which produces the above BeanMetaData internally (probably using your new builder :-). You can forget about this and just use the bean xml equivalent in the initial work. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009505#4009505 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009505

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Bug in token actions in process instance view of the con

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

Ok, this stuff should all be taken care of. If anyone finds any problems with this code, please let me know asap. So far it's passing all of my tests. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009503#4009503 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009503

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JGroups configuration for clustering testing

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

If you removed the attribute multiplexer on the PostOffice, the multiplexer would still be running but we wouldn't be using it. I understood we didn't want to use the multiplexer any more. (at least not for now) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009502#4009502 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009502

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: New wireformat

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

Just as a brain storm... I had the impression we could refactor failover a bit, to be called directly from these new methods. Maybe adding new methods to FailoverCommandCenter. As we are interested in capturing remoting failures only, we could have the valve and failure detection right on top of the invocation.. maybe having a hook to add such behavior on DelegateSupport. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009498#4009498 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009498

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by adrian＠jboss.org

"bill.burke(a)jboss.com" wrote : | I think I see what you mean. Thread scope would want to obtain metadata from both its transaction and conversation. Is that what you're talking about? | Yes it is similar to the AOP scoped metadata, but I rewrote it in the container project to introduce type safety, annotation overrides, internal caching (if required) and an abitrary scope concept. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009496#4009496 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009496

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Experimental notion of attachments for types

by adrian＠jboss.org

I've introduced an experimental notion of attachments for types in the TypeInfo api. This allows for easier caching of information related to a type. It also means that when we introduce a better caching mechanism than the WeakTypeCache we can control better what gets flushed from memory because it is not being used. My one concern is that this information is public so it would probably need a security permission to allow modifcation. Given that concern, it might be better to just use a more normal | WeakHashMap<TypeInfo, WeakReference<ObjectCached>> | where you want to do caching instead? But the internal weak hashmap doesn't allow the information to be shared as easily and it means ugly handling of the WeakReferences. Also multiple WeakReferences for each cached object is something that really stresses the GC. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009491#4009491 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009491

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - BeanInfos for annotations

by adrian＠jboss.org

I've extended the BeanInfo api so you can now retrieve a bean view of annotations. e.g. This will produce a bean with one property "value". | public @interface MyAnnotation | { | String value(); | } | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009483#4009483 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009483

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Again, this difference is explained in the metadata integration thread. Cool, I'll try to combine the above info with this metadata integration thread info, and produce some initial code. <policy> | <scope/> | <annotations/> | <bindings/> | </policy> How is this integrated with current MC xml, I don't see it :-(? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009482#4009482 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009482

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by bill.burke＠jboss.com

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : "bill.burke(a)jboss.com" wrote : Adrian, I'm not grokking here... | | See the scoped metadata in org.jboss.metadata in the container project | and its integration with the MC which was discussed/done within the last | couple of months. | | | | <deploymen> | | <scope name="application"> | | <bean name="Foo"/> | | <scope name="session"> | | <bean name="bar/> | | </scope> | | </scope | | </deployment> | | | | That won't work because you define the scopes hierarchically | but also somewhat randomly (even without introducing session/thread/transaction/converstation/etc. :-) | I think I see what you mean. Thread scope would want to obtain metadata from both its transaction and conversation. Is that what you're talking about? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4009480#4009480 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4009480

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums February 2007