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

[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=4184437#4184437 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184437

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Identity] - Re: JBoss Identity Design Preview

by jeff.yuchang

Hi, One thought for the API: Collection findAssociatedIdentities(Group group, boolean inherited, int offset, int limit, boolean orderedByName, boolean ascending) throws IdentityException; For this API, can we wrap the offset, limit, orderedByName, ascending into a parameter Object, so that it other project might be easier to extend this class meet some other projects needs. I also noticed that the other methods, such as findAssociatedGroups(....). Thoughts? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184430#4184430 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184430

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by timfox

"gaohoward" wrote : | Just had a look at message group impl (see GroupingRoundRobinDistributionPolicy) and I think I've already done what this class can be done for the ordering purpose. Plus I also have added the Message priority control in my code. So I decide to move on and focus on solving Tx issues. | Howard - could you rephrase? I'm not sure I understood you correctly. Does the grouping approach we discussed not handle tx cases? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184428#4184428 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184428

15 years, 12 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 : | | Message grouping guarantee all the messages in a group goes to one consumer. | | But ordering group is different, it guarantees messages being sent out one by one, it doesn't really care who receives the message. | | | | | | [Just discussed with Howard on IRC] | | I think they're very closely related. | | With message grouping, then all messages with the same group_id go to the same consumer as long as the consumer is not closed. If that consumer is closed the server will choose another consumer. | | So it seems to me that message groups already provide ordering groups functionality. | | The slight difference with message groups is all messages for that group go to the same consumer as long as that consumer is not closed. | | Where, with the ordering groups, you would only need to send messages to the same consumer as long as there are no unacked for that consumer, so you could end up round robining. | | Although in practice, the latter would not be strictly necessary to fulfil the requirements. Just had a look at message group impl (see GroupingRoundRobinDistributionPolicy) and I think I've already done what this class can be done for the ordering purpose. Plus I also have added the Message priority control in my code. So I decide to move on and focus on solving Tx issues. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184424#4184424 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184424

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by jaikiran

I now understand how to reproduce this. Your workaround description in that JIRA issue helped me reproduce this issue :-) So i changed my bean to: | @Stateless | @Remote (UserManagerRemote.class) | @RemoteBinding (jndiBinding = "ZEJB3Persistence/UserManagerBean") | public class UserManagerBean implements UserManagerLocal, UserManagerRemote { The ZEJB3Persistence is the name of my EAR file in which this bean is deployed. And it fails during deploy time with CCE (on CR2 and trunk) as you mentioned. But from what i see, it fails while binding the business interface specific proxies at ZEJB3Persistence/UserManagerBean/remote-org.myapp.ejb.UserManagerRemote and not the default business proxy. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184407#4184407 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184407

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: MySQL + PostgreSQL broken

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Well as you can see here http://jbpm.dyndns.org:8280/hudson/job/jBPM3-JDK1.5/14/ a large portion of tests are failing because of this. Generally, if one introduces regression he should fix it the next day, which should always possible with rollback. We did have successful test runs where these additional left over records did not matter. Yes the test does not clean up properly, but if the following tests are not effected this is not a critical issue and can be dealt with in the next release cycle. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184391#4184391 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184391

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by jaikiran

"jaikiran" wrote : | From what i had seen this far, if @RemoteBinding was specified, the the default binding would not be done. Let me give this a try again and see if i am mistaken. | For this bean: | | @Stateless | @Remote (UserManagerRemote.class) | @RemoteBinding (jndiBinding = "RemoteUserManagerBean") | public class UserManagerBean implements UserManagerLocal, UserManagerRemote { deployed in ZEJB3Persistence.ear, this is what i see in JNDIView +- ZEJB3Persistence (class: org.jnp.interfaces.NamingContext) | | +- UserManagerBean (class: org.jnp.interfaces.NamingContext) | | | +- local-org.myapp.ejb.UserManagerLocal (class: Proxy for: org.myapp.ejb.UserManagerLocal) | | | +- remote-org.myapp.ejb.UserManagerRemote (class: Proxy for: org.myapp.ejb.UserManagerRemote) | +- RemoteUserManagerBean (class: Proxy for: org.myapp.ejb.UserManagerRemote) So i don't see that when the @RemoteBinding is specified, the Default binding too is done. I am on JBoss-5 CR2. I haven't tested this on Trunk. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184376#4184376 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184376

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of AOP on JBoss (Aspects/JBoss)] - Re: Dynamic Aspect: managing unknow aspect

by stale.pedersen＠jboss.org

hi, this is the design forum. you'll have better luck trying in the aop user forum here: http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewforum&f=236 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184375#4184375 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184375

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by jaikiran

"ALRubinger" wrote : | Given: | | @Stateless(name="MyBean") | | @Remote(MyRemote.class) | | @RemoteBinding(jndiBinding="MyBean") | | class MyBean{...} | | Right now this would produce: | | /MyBean - Explicit from @RemoteBinding | | /MyBean/remote - Default Remote Business Interface Proxy Binding | | >From what i had seen this far, if @RemoteBinding was specified, the the default binding would not be done. Let me give this a try again and see if i am mistaken. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184369#4184369 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184369

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by ALRubinger

https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-1545 S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184368#4184368 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4184368

15 years, 12 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 October 2008