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

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Redesign extended persistence context

by wolfc

"gavin.king(a)jboss.com" wrote : Passivation definitely does not imply serialization. EJB 3 4.2.1: The Bean Provider is required to ensure that the PrePassivate method leaves the instance ?elds and the ?elds of its associated interceptors ready to be serialized by the container. I like the 'may' bit of JPA. Now we ammend that with our own: Passivation and replication of an XPC and it's managed entities will not detach a managed entity. Leaves us with the 'how do we do that?' View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4079112#4079112 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4079112

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: Removal of JBossTM from JBossAS trunk

by mark.little＠jboss.com

Yes, there's no reason I'm aware of that would prevent the embedded version being JBossTS either. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4079100#4079100 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4079100

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Common project dependency

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Similar to this problem: | http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4077827#4077827 | I still get this problem: - from Hudson: http://dev45.qa.atl.jboss.com:8585/hudson/job/Microcontainer/org.jboss.mi... It's the same locally and on my TeamCity: | # /opt/buildAgent/work/Server/JBoss_Microcontainer/container/src/main/org/jboss/beans/info/plugins/AbstractBeanInfoFactory.java:[147,38] type org.jboss.util.collection.WeakValueHashMap does not take parameters | The 2.0.4.GA is pulled in from somewhere - and appears in classpath before 2.2.1. I saw some pom.xml changes from PaulG, thought this is what he was aiming at - info from linked post. btw: I saw there is new jbossxb 2.0.4.GA in repo - under org.jboss groupId. Should I move MC to use that? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4079052#4079052 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4079052

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: Jar hell

by thomas.heute＠jboss.com

Yep, i agree now with the modules, maven can probably finally bring something :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078985#4078985 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078985

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: Removal of JBossTM from JBossAS trunk

by andy.miller＠jboss.com

I would like to make sure that it gets removed at least for the first CR, and I really think the embedded case should also be JBoss Transactions, because the old transaction manager has lots of problems with correctness. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078982#4078982 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078982

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: ORA-014161 - Help with Bug on Oracle Driver

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

Update: I've create a JIRA for this: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBMESSAGING-1060 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078977#4078977 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078977

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Redesign extended persistence context

by gavin.king＠jboss.com

"wolfc" wrote : If passivation implies serialization then according to JPA spec the entity becomes detached. | EJB 3 4.2.1 allows for a reference to a serializable object, not a keep-alive managed entity. Passivation definitely does not imply serialization. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078968#4078968 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078968

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Redesign extended persistence context

by gavin.king＠jboss.com

"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : "wolfc" wrote : Given those rules an entity drawn from a xpc and directly refered (from a field) by a SFSB must act as I said. | | JPA 3.2.4 says serializing an entity "may result" in a detached entity; it doesn't say it must. So, seems to me we have flexibility. When the JPA spec talks about serializing entities it is definitely not talking about any serialization that might happen during passivation (that is an implementation detail of the container and is not visible to, or part of the contract with, the application). What it is talking about is entities returned by remote method. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078966#4078966 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078966

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Redesign extended persistence context

by gavin.king＠jboss.com

"wolfc" wrote : Passivation/activation isn't a problem, because by definition we only passivate if the entities are serializable (EJB 3 4.2) and we treat the entity as a serializable object. Thus the entity becomes detached after activation (JPA 3.2.4). All working according to spec. This definitely not allowed by the spec. An entity should remain managed across passivation/activation. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078965#4078965 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078965

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Portal] - Re: Jar hell

by julien＠jboss.com

Note that when I talk about Maven migration, for now it is for the detached modules, not 2.6 branch. Those module I believe will be easy to mavenize as they are fairly simple. The problem comes from the detached modules mostly. We can still discuss about 2.6 branch mavenization too. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4078964#4078964 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4078964

16 years, 9 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 August 2007