[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - MAVEN: build change
by Kevin.Conner@jboss.com
I have been trying to fix up the build so that the last remaining hudson failure is handled. Unfortunately I have been seeing failures which are not evident in hudson.
It appears that these failures are a consequence of the version of maven I am using, in particular the way in which it handles conflicts during the transitive dependency resolution.
To fix this I went through the poms and tidied up the dependency management, moving the version information into the parent pom. I now have a clean build on maven 2.0.6 and 2.0.7 on my local machine.
Does anyone object to having this checked in?
Does anyone object to enforcing the maven version through the pom prerequisite? If not, which version? 2.0.7?
Which version does hudson use BTW?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4062965#4062965
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4062965
18 years, 9 months
[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Java EE unified metadata prototype
by alex.loubyansky@jboss.com
"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : anonymous wrote :
| | - the DDs are supposed to be unmarshalled into different object graphs and then merged, right?
| |
|
| Unless you know of a way to unmarshal two seperate files into one object mode
| simultanously? :-)
That was one of the goals for ObjectModelFactory API. Although the parsing code based on that we currently have is quite messy...
Taking the SchemaBinding maybe it would be possible to write custom particle handlers or add a better support for this to XB itself.
"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : I'm assuming that even if JBoss (during deployment) doesn't
| use the information then somebody else might. Maybe even in their own deployer? It also allows for the object model to be changed (programmatically)
| and remarshalled back to the xml - something that's currently impossible
| (at least for org.jboss.metadata) because the parsing is not reversable.
There could be something like an adapter to hide structural differences between the XSD and the Java model.
But I guess you were trying to follow the XSD structure in Java object model and keep it as close as 1-to-1?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4062962#4062962
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4062962
18 years, 9 months
[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Java EE unified metadata prototype
by adrian@jboss.org
"alex.loubyansky(a)jboss.com" wrote : I looked into Adrian's metadata prototype for EJB2/3 (which hasn't been committed and isn't available publicly).
|
| - the bindings are done with java annotations and it's based on jbossxb-builder. We will need to release the jbossxb-builder if we decide to follow this approach
|
The annotations are out-of-date, they would need updating to the JAXB annotations.
anonymous wrote :
| - the DDs are supposed to be unmarshalled into different object graphs and then merged, right?
|
Unless you know of a way to unmarshal two seperate files into one object mode
simultanously? :-)
anonymous wrote :
| - the binding between Java and XML is exact, i.e. each XML element (even if are not interested in it) will be represented in the Java model, right?
I'm assuming that even if JBoss (during deployment) doesn't
use the information then somebody else might. Maybe even in their own deployer?
It also allows for the object model to be changed (programmatically)
and remarshalled back to the xml - something that's currently impossible
(at least for org.jboss.metadata) because the parsing is not reversable.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4062950#4062950
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4062950
18 years, 9 months
[Deployers on JBoss (Deployers/JBoss)] - Re: Ear deployment ordering broken in trunk
by adrian@jboss.org
"wolfc" wrote : It's not about stages. Both ejb deployers and client deployers should have the same stage configuration.
|
Of course its about stages (proper dependencies across deployments).
You shouldn't even be binding the appclient into jndi until the EJB is ready to use
What if the EJB deployment fails do you still bind the appclient into jndi?
I don't think so, but its what happens in jboss-4.x
What if the EJB is waiting for some other dependency in a totally different
deployment (that maybe will be added later - because the user forgot)?
Do you bind the appclient, again NO.
It is just a trivial case of a more generic problem that I have explained many times
but I haven't seen any movement on fixing it.
Once I've done classloading dependencies we (or more probably I ;-)
can use it as an example on how to do proper jndi (and other registry)
dependencies - inside the MC dependency mechanism.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4062941#4062941
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4062941
18 years, 9 months