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

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: jboss/remoting 2.2.0.Alpha7 not compatible with jboss5

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

If remoting breaks out http, then jbm has to as well. You cannot have a cross product of dependencies on the same type of component (http stack in this case) in an artifact as its just going to pull in conflicting dependencies for no reason. Its the consumer remoting and jbm that are going to define which remoting and jbm artifact correspond to the http stack. Start breaking project up along the lines of their dependencies so that they can be properly consumed. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022581#4022581 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022581

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

Correct. So far all priviledged blocks I have are part of the JBMICROCONT-150 subtask (VFS callers are missing privileged blocks). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022573#4022573 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022573

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - LDAP test matrix

by prabhat.jha＠jboss.com

Hi Bolek, I have a created http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBQA-687 to configure and run portal testsuite with different LDAP server. I see that you have already done most of the work. Directories.xml in portal/trunk/test/src/etc/directories.xml has configs for four different servers namely OpenDS, RedHatDS, MSAD and OpenLDAP but the latests tests have run only with OpenDS. Is there a reason behind disabling other servers? Besides these four, do we need to add more in our matrix? Regards, prabhat View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022562#4022562 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022562

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Web Services] - Re: WSContractConsumer API in a seam app

by jason.greene＠jboss.com

"maeste" wrote : Ops, something went wrong in my last post and the final part of my message doesn't be visible: | "jason.greene(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | | | Be careful when replacing the context loader when running in a container. If you do this you should restore the original thread context loader. | | | | -Jason | I suspected it is too aggressive. What is the best way to tell the current class loader to include also my generated client class? | | Many many tanks for your time You don't actually need to mess with the context classloader. Once a class is loaded you can freely pass the class reference around. The JVM associates the class reference to the loader that loaded it, and that loader is preserved until all class references are garbage collected. The only scenario to replace a context loader is if you are using an API that uses it, and doesnt offer a mechanism to pass the loader directly. However, when you do this you must use a try finally block that restores the context loader to the original version. So, your problems might go away if remove the context loader assignment, and the RMIAdaptor hack. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022553#4022553 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022553

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: various questions

by gavin.king＠jboss.com

I'm really happy to see this discussion. I've been asking for this for a while now, so its good to see it might actually happen. The thing is that, from a pure *data modelling* perspective (forget jBPM, forget usecases, forget Hibernate), all tables should have unique natural keys, as well as the surrogate key that is used for maintaining relationships. Otherwise, the table is not a proper relation. (It does not represent a set of things.) Tom is totally wrong to suggest that this is a limitation of JPA/Hibernate (he needs to read Hibernate in Action where this is discussed carefully). You simply can't use a surrogate key for equals(), it can't possibly work, and it doesn't make sense anyway from a user point of view. And, of course, anytime you don't have a natural key, it becomes waaay more difficult to find the data you are looking for (the surrogate key is meaningless to the user). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022533#4022533 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022533

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: variable instance getObject versus getValue

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

I see. The reason I made them public is that many of them already were... I think there was about four instances of this method that were not public; one of which was on the base class. All the rest were already public. Should I make *all* of the getObject methods be protected? I had some problem with getValue/setValue in the past, though to be honest I don't remember what it was. I just had this on my todo list to clean up, one way or another. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022525#4022525 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022525

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - [O/T] Bug/issue triage

by kukeltje

Guys, In the light of the question regarding open issues for 3.2 (and beyond) I'd like to propose something that is done within the Mozilla community on a regular basis. Go through the list of issues and triage them. Maybe we should pick (half) a day and all login on e.g. an irc channel or via aim/msn/skype-chat or whatever and work this out. I think if we point customers to the roadmap in the wiki, it should be a good one, and when dates shift (which is imo completely valid) that should be put in the jira as well. Thoughts? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022511#4022511 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022511

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - variable instance getObject versus getValue

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

David, the idea is that getObject is an internal method and that getValue is used by clients. sorry for not documenting this properly. can you revert those changes and use getValue instead ? or was there some other reason why you made the getObject public ? regards, tom. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022503#4022503 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022503

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: JBAS-1437 RARMetaDataRepository

by weston.price＠jboss.com

The parsing of the *-ds.xml file is not trivial as the format has been butchered through the years to include things that probably should have never been allowed and no one ever seemed to draw a line in the sand to make people stop. Using AOP for the parsing of the *-ds.xml format would seem to make some sense for a few reasons a) Element name definitions can be injected into the parsing aspects rather than being hardcoded. By element name defintions, I mean the actual mapping of things like <min-pool-size>, <driver-class>. Anyway you look at it, the elements from the DTD have to be mapped somehow, someway to something. Before you say it, I know that this can be done via simple MC injection or can simply be thrown it in a properties file for reference, but this just doesn't seem to me to be the best approach. I could be wrong. b)As new elements get added to the *-ds.xml (see above), new aspects can just be added to support this. Also, new file formats can be accomodated via aspects since there would be no real behavior in the actual class itself. anonymous wrote : | The correct approach is | xml -> metadata model | metadata model -> components (jmx/pojo) | Right, and as long as the appropriate MetaData gets generated from the *-ds.xml, I don't see there being a *wrong* approach. Ideally I would have liked to use some form of DataBinding to do the unmarshalling rather than doing the parsing by hand. However, I wanted to keep my dependencies to a minimum as well as put an end (at least in my stuff) to the JAXB, JBossXB debate which never did seem to get resolved. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022475#4022475 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022475

17 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Does the EJB deployer only deploy jars?

by apill

I am trying to deploy a directory of classes with META-INF/persistence.xml into embedded jboss. It seems as though the EJB deployer will only deploy the EJBs if I package them as a jar first. Is this correct? Is there any way to deploy a directory instead? Thanks. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4022465#4022465 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4022465

17 years, 8 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