[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Maven build broken again - Microcontainer
by scott.stark@jboss.org
I'm building ok, and I'll I have in my settings.xml is:
| [starksm@succubus 19435]$ cat ~/.m2/settings.xml
| <settings>
| <!-- This could point to the svn checkout of the
| repository.jboss.com/maven2 contents, or a separate local
| maven repo
| -->
| <localRepository>/home/svn/repository.jboss.com/maven2</localRepository>
|
| <servers>
| <server>
| <id>snapshots.jboss.org</id>
| <username>scott.stark(a)jboss.org</username>
| <password>x</password>
| </server>
| </servers>
|
| <profiles>
| <profile>
| <id>local-properties</id>
| <properties>
| <!-- This must point to the cvs or svn checkout of the jboss repository -->
| <jboss.repository.root>/home/svn/repository.jboss.com</jboss.repository.root>
| <maven.repository.root>/home/svn/repository.jboss.com</maven.repository.root>
| <!-- This must point to the cvs checkout of the
| repository.jboss.com/maven2 contents
| -->
| <maven.cvs.root>/home/svn/repository.jboss.com/maven2</maven.cvs.root>
| </properties>
| </profile>
| </profiles>
|
| <activeProfiles>
| <activeProfile>local-properties</activeProfile>
| </activeProfiles>
| </settings>
|
I do maven-jdocbook-plugin in my local repo though, so maybe its from a previous build with the repo specified in a pom.xml.
[starksm@succubus SyncroSVNClient-v3.0]$ ls /home/svn/repository.jboss.com/maven2/org/jboss/maven/plugins/maven-jdocbook-plugin
2.0.0/ maven-metadata.xml maven-metadata.xml.md5 maven-metadata.xml.sha1
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4123169#4123169
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4123169
18 years, 2 months
[Design of JBoss Web Services] - JBAS-3812, ws deployers modify JBossWebMetaData
by scott.stark@jboss.org
We are still doing some hacky integration between the ws deployers and the war deployer. The WebMetaData/JBossWebMetaData processing should be sufficiently authoritative at this point that we don't need to write out a modified web.xml. I'm not sure this is still being used in org.jboss.web.deployers.AbstractWarDeployment:
| // Get the war URL
| // FIXME: JBAS-3812 - TomcatDeployment should use modified WebMetaData
| URL warURL = unit.getAttachment("org.jboss.web.expandedWarURL", URL.class);
| if( warURL == null )
| warURL = unit.getAttachment("jbossws.expanded.war.url", URL.class);
| if (warURL == null)
| warURL = unit.getRoot().toURL();
|
The tomcat layer is being driven by the WebMetaData/JBossWebMetaData now, so any modification by the ws deployers should be done as input into a deployer like MergedJBossMetaDataDeployer does for the ejb metadata. I'd like to get this cleaned up for jbossas 5.0.0.CR1 when the war deployer is cleaned up.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4123146#4123146
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4123146
18 years, 2 months
[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: EJBTHREE-1173 and Beta4
by scott.stark@jboss.org
As documented in EJBTHREE-1173, I added a hack to introduce a dependency on the timer service mbean in trunk as a temp fix. Carlo notes:
anonymous wrote :
| I still want to see the injection of the timer service into the deployer explored. It should create an implicit dependency.
|
| Besides that way we properly establish which timer service are to be used by the containers.
|
| Hmm, I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. I want EJB containers to become EJB Stateful, while this problem suggests EJB containers to become proper MC beans. In the end I want to have this code:
|
| @Stateful // the container is a (level 1) bootstrap stateful session
| public class StatefulContainer
| {
| @Resource TimerServiceFactory timerServiceFactory; // Injected
| }
|
| Level 1: EJB with injection & interception (there is chicken egg problem here)
| Level 2: EJB with timers
| Level 3: EJB with passivation
| Level 4: Full EJB
| (there will be more, or less)
|
| So I'm catching up to the notion of MC control. That would mean an extra layer on top of MC for EJB functionality. And an EJB instance would actually be a MC bean instance (with EJB component meta data). That would leave interceptors in a void again.
|
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4123123#4123123
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4123123
18 years, 2 months