September 2007 - jboss-dev-forums

[Design of JBoss ESB] - jboss-esb-console

by haiwu.us＠gmail.com

I haven't had any luck to get the jboss-esb-console to work by following almost the same step as shown in jboss esb tutorial demo 1 here at http://labs.jboss.com/jbossesb/resources/tutorials/xformation-demos/conso.... I am using the latest ESB released today. Has this demo been tested Ok for this newest release? Thanks, Hai View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081545#4081545 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081545

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: expression or execute

by gavin.king＠jboss.com

Deprecate it and then remove it in the next major version. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081528#4081528 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081528

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: expression or execute

by kukeltje

If we never intend to remove it, we should not really deprecate it (either by documenting it and/or logging a warning), just leave it in as an alias to execute. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081489#4081489 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081489

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: mc release prep

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

I just copied the current trunk into the https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/microcontainer/branches/2_0/ branch in prep for the beta4 release. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081483#4081483 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081483

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Feature Request - global lists API

by camunda

YOu can use the Command's with a Java-EE-facade. But even if you don't use it, I think it is a very handy place for own code. And it is quite nice encapsulated. You can use it easly also without a Java-EE-Facade (just hand in a JbpmContext), so you are completly flexible with the environment. Also there are alraedy Commands which you can use as a starting point. More or less the "normal" advantages of the Command pattern (ask Google for advantages ;-)). View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081446#4081446 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081446

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Feature Request - global lists API

by estaub

Camunda, You wrote: anonymous wrote : In my opinion the best place for your own java code is then a own Command (Command Pattern is introduced in jbpm 3.2.x)... Is this because you are using a J2EE EJB interface? If not, why do you think this is good way to develop extensions? Thanks, -Ed Staub View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081442#4081442 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081442

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Space versus time, e.g. JBCACHE-1157

by jason.greene＠jboss.com

"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : Eh? 1157 has nothing to do with a CHM in UnversionedNode. I did try using a CHM at one point, which did "hide" the issue again, but this posed other problems (inability to store nulls in the node). | | It's back to HashMap in UnversionedNode now, and the correct fix for 1157 is in the PessimisticLockInterceptor. | | I believe he was referring to the child node map which has to be a CHM, even with Pessimistic locking, since we do not lock the parent node for inserts / removes. We could alternatively use a synchronized map. With MVCC we could restore parent node locking on insert / remove, and thus switch to a pain hashmap, since reads are non blocking and would no longer affect traversal. -Jason View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081431#4081431 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081431

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of AOP on JBoss (Aspects/JBoss)] - Re: hot deployment into a running JVM

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

Deleting duplicate post View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081398#4081398 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081398

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Adding ManagedObjectCreator support to AbstractSimpleRea

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

Yes. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081387#4081387 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081387

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Deadlock in DelegateUnitTestCase

by adrian＠jboss.org

If you can reproduce it can you try to debug it or add enableTrace("org.jboss.classloader") to the test. There's obviously a bug somewhere since thread "B" is trying to unlock the classloader: | "B" prio=1 tid=0x0000002ae35e1fa0 nid=0x536c waiting for monitor entry [0x0000000041563000..0x000000004 | 1565c30] | at org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.BaseClassLoader.unlock(BaseClassLoader.java:701) | - waiting to lock <0x0000002acaf81e50> (a org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.BaseClassLoader) | at org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.BaseClassLoader.unlock(BaseClassLoader.java:583) | at org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.ClassLoaderManager.nextTask(ClassLoaderManager.java:286) | But at this point in the code "A" has it: | at org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.BaseClassLoader.loadClassFromDomain(BaseClassLoader.java:4 | 83) | at org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.BaseClassLoader.loadClass(BaseClassLoader.java:158) | - locked <0x0000002acaf81e50> (a org.jboss.classloader.spi.base.BaseClassLoader) | So the two questions are: 1) Is this is spurious unlock and "B" didn't have the lock? 2) Did "A" obtain the lock when it shouldn't have done? I'd guess it is (1) since I didn't understand *fully* understand the "release in next task" in the old LoadMgr3, I just copied the logic. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4081266#4081266 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4081266

17 years, 1 month

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 September 2007