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

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: JBossTS Tx timeout (with CMT beans)

by jhalliday

> Is there a thread that wakes up periodically (e.g. every 5'') and evaluates the timeouts or does it wake up at the exact timeout time? Either way depending on configuration, although 'exact' is still a bit flexible. > Does it deal with the timeouts themselves in separate threads? yes. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055619#4055619 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055619

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - JBossTS Tx timeout (with CMT beans)

by dimitris＠jboss.org

I was seeing random failures with org.jboss.test.tm.test.TxTimeoutUnitTestCase - testOverriddenTimeoutExpires() The timeout is set to 5'' while the bean is actually waiting 8'' inside a method. Some times the asynchronous timeout/rollback doesn't happen and I had to do a 7'' [+ 2''] seconds sleep to make it reliably pass (at least locally). I'm wondering how tx timeouts are implemented by JBoss TS. Is there a thread that wakes up periodically (e.g. every 5'') and evaluates the timeouts or does it wake up at the exact timeout time? Does it deal with the timeouts themselves in separate threads? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055617#4055617 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055617

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Permissions on temporary destinations (JBMESSAGING-994)

by timfox

"sergeypk" wrote : Yes, this will work. It seems quite inflexible to me though (a user can either access any temporary queue or none at all), but it's better than nothing. How is this inflexible? What is the use case for someone being able to read/write from some temporary destinations rather than others? I don't see it yet. Even if you wanted the ability to specify different security configuration on a per temporary queue basis, how would you specify this? This would have to be done programmatically by the creator of the temp destination. What API would they use? I am still struggling to see what the point of this is. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055613#4055613 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055613

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Permissions on temporary destinations (JBMESSAGING-994)

by sergeypk

Yes, this will work. It seems quite inflexible to me though (a user can either access any temporary queue or none at all), but it's better than nothing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055600#4055600 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055600

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - JBAS-4489 - Suspending Incomplete BMT transactions

by adrian＠jboss.org

http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-4489 I see you were already suspending incomplete transactions, which means you had already seen and resolved the problem. I think there is still an issue that you should be throwing an exception for the incomplete transaction, otherwise the caller isn't going to know it failed! The real problem is that my test is broken, it doesn't assert that it actually got the expected exception. It should be something like: | public void testTxTimeout() | { | + boolean gotException = true; | BMTCleanUp remote = (BMTCleanUp) sessionCtx.getEJBObject(); | try | { | remote.doTimeout(); | } | catch (EJBException expected) | { | // expected | expected.printStackTrace(); | + gotException = true; | } | + if (gotException == false) | + throw new EJBException("Did not get expected exception for incomplete transaction"); | checkTransaction(); | remote.doNormal(); | } | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055598#4055598 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055598

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Permissions on temporary destinations (JBMESSAGING-994)

by timfox

Can't we just add roles "temporary-queue-readers" and "temporary-queue-writers", set that as the security on the connection factory (or just the default security), then make sure joe and jane have the appropriate roles? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055595#4055595 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055595

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Permissions on temporary destinations (JBMESSAGING-994)

by sergeypk

Suppose we have user joe and he wants to send a message to some destination and receive a reply. So he does createConnection("joe", "joespassword") and then creates a temporary queue and sends a message to some queue with JMSReplyTo set to the temporary queue. In the ideal world, I would probably want to configure the temporary queue so that only the intended recipient can write to it and only joe can read from it. But what if then we have user jane trying to send a message of her own to some destination totally unrelated to that of joe's, and she wants to use a temporary queue as well? How would we configure temporary queue permissions to be adequate for both cases if both users are to use the same connection factory? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055592#4055592 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055592

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Permissions on temporary destinations (JBMESSAGING-994)

by timfox

anonymous wrote : | But this means that different users will all use the same temp destination security? Is this ok? Shouldn't the temp destination permissions be configurable on a per-user basis? | Why? I am struggling to understand what the real issue is here... Can you summarise? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055582#4055582 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055582

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: redirect to an external URL from an action

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

Koen, please post on the appropriate forum. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055580#4055580 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055580

18 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Permissions on temporary destinations (JBMESSAGING-994)

by timfox

"sergeypk" But this means that different users will all use the same temp destination security? Is this ok? Shouldn't the temp destination permissions be configurable on a per-user basis?[/quote wrote : | | Why? | | I am struggling to understand what the real issue is here... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4055579#4055579 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4055579

18 years, 9 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 June 2007