October 2008 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by timfox

At this point, don't worry about your code. We just need to find out if a simple grouping approach as we discussed works. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184453#4184453 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184453

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by gaohoward

"timfox" wrote : In other words, don't reinvent the wheel! ;) I know, but if you just have a look at my branch, u'll find mine is not just 'reinvent the wheel". I'm reinventing a 'worse' wheel. :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184451#4184451 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184451

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by gaohoward

"timfox" wrote : "gaohoward" wrote : Tim, the message group is not transaction aware. | | | | Does it need to be transaction aware? | | anonymous wrote : As we discussed, it may still work under tx env. So far I haven't figured out an exception where it won't work. But I think it won't make much difference to get the message group code over to 1.4, as my code is already there and can do the same. | | | | I would rather use code that we know works than use new code that does the same thing. | | | That's what i'm not sure at the moment, if it doesn't need to be tx aware, that's great to us. I just want to hold my code for some time to allow me to think the issue over and then make a decision. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184449#4184449 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184449

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Kill Default Remote Binding if 1+ @RemoteBinding is spec

by wolfc

What happens if: @Stateless(name="MyBean") | @Local(MyLocal.class) | @Remote(MyRemote.class) | @RemoteBinding(jndiBinding="MyBean") | class MyBean{...} View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184448#4184448 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184448

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: EJB3 / AS Integration

by wolfc

The only point I worry about is that it must not have a dependency on AS trunk itself. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184447#4184447 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184447

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: JBAS-6104; slow Seam deployments

by alesj

"shane.bryzak(a)jboss.com" wrote : can you please let me know when this makes it into jbossas trunk and I'll do some more performance testing. The changes are in the trunk. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184446#4184446 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184446

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by timfox

In other words, don't reinvent the wheel! ;) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184442#4184442 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184442

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by timfox

"gaohoward" wrote : Tim, the message group is not transaction aware. | Does it need to be transaction aware? anonymous wrote : As we discussed, it may still work under tx env. So far I haven't figured out an exception where it won't work. But I think it won't make much difference to get the message group code over to 1.4, as my code is already there and can do the same. | I would rather use code that we know works that use new code that does the same thing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184441#4184441 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184441

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by gaohoward

Sorry Tim, I posted twice, please delete one, thx. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184440#4184440 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184440

17 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Ordering Group -- Transaction Scenario Analysis (Typical

by gaohoward

Tim, the message group is not transaction aware. As we discussed, it may still work under tx env. So far I haven't figured out an exception where it won't work. But I think it won't make much difference to get the message group code over to 1.4, as my code is already there and can do the same. So I'm thinking more tx scenarios to see if i missed any important cases. If I find (that won't take long i think) what we've discussed is already enough, then I will think about whether using mine or the message group. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184439#4184439 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184439

17 years, 2 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 October 2008