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

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: UserTransactedStartedListener

by adrian＠jboss.org

What I propose to do is add a new registry bean to transaction-service.xml This will use the MC (un)install callbacks to keep track of UserTransactionStartedListeners meaning they don't have to be directly configured with a reference to the UTs or the TM. If they are there, they will be linked together, otherwise they won't. The new registry will also allow mulitple listeners. Currently the api(s) only allow a singleton. For now I propose that the registry still has the hardwiring shown above, but including whatever EJB3 does to register a listener. A fix to this other side of the api requires more work, e.g. having the UT suppliers implement some interface such that the MC can also do (un)install callbacks without the registry having to be pre-coded with a list of available implementataions. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179781#4179781 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179781

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - UserTransactedStartedListener

by adrian＠jboss.org

Within JCA we have a requirement to be told when UserTransactions start so we can do the "lazy enlist" processing: http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/LazyJCAEnlistment The wiring of this processing is horrible. It is hardcoded into the CCM (CachedConnectionManager). | | protected void startService() | throws Exception | { | tm = (TransactionManager) getServer().getAttribute(transactionManagerServiceName, | "TransactionManager"); | TransactionSynchronizer.setTransactionManager(tm); | ServerVMClientUserTransaction.getSingleton().registerTxStartedListener(this); | EnterpriseContext.setUserTransactionStartedListener(this); | } | | protected void stopService() throws Exception | { | ServerVMClientUserTransaction.getSingleton().unregisterTxStartedListener(this); | EnterpriseContext.setUserTransactionStartedListener(null); | } | As you can see this has a number of problems: 1) The CCM has to be configured with a transaction manager. Something we want to make optional in the web-profile 2) It has to know implementation details of the EJB2 container 3) It doesn't know about EJB3 or any other supplier of a UT implementation View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179777#4179777 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179777

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: TransactionManager and AS' ServiceBindingManager

by adrian＠jboss.org

"jhalliday" wrote : | As long as it returns a value 0-65535 that's uniq in the scope of the O/S it's running on it should be possible to plug it in without too much hassle. But that's the problem. Its relatively easy to generate a String that is unique, generating a number that is unique is a lot harder to do. Why does it have to be a number between 0x0000 and 0xFFFF? >From the other thread: anonymous wrote : | The SocketProcessId is basically a kludge to get a uniq number (the port number) for use in Uids, in place of the ability to get the process id, which you can't do from Java. | So why can't we plugin our own UID implementation directly? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179775#4179775 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179775

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: TransactionManager and AS' ServiceBindingManager

by wolfc

How can we plug-in another implementation? It appears to me that the usage of SocketProcesId is hard-coded. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179772#4179772 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179772

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: TransactionManager and AS' ServiceBindingManager

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

"jhalliday" wrote : | - Use a value of '0', which tells the socketProcessId to use a random free port. Upside: probably the easiest fix, since it's a one line change in bindings.xml Downside: odd semantic change when 0 is offset (100, 200, etc) by the SBM - it's now fixed no longer random. The offset would also need to be greater that 1024 or you wind up trying to bind low numbered ports. The SBM supports configuring certain beans to ignore the "increase ports-default by 100" approach: | |  | <bean name="Ports01Bindings" class="org.jboss.bindings.impl.PortOffsetServiceBindingSet"> | | <constructor> | <parameter><inject bean="PortsDefaultBindings"/></parameter> | <parameter>100</parameter> |  | <parameter> | <set> |  | <bean class="org.jboss.bindings.ServiceBinding"> | <constructor> | <parameter>jboss:service=invoker,type=pooled</parameter> | <parameter>${jboss.bind.address}</parameter> | <parameter>0</parameter> | </constructor> | </bean> | </set> | </parameter> |  | <parameter>${jboss.bind.address}</parameter> | </constructor> | </bean> View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179771#4179771 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179771

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: jboss.entity.manager.factory.jndi.name

by pete.muir＠jboss.org

Carlo has said this will be fixed for JBoss 5 GA IIRC. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179766#4179766 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179766

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: TransactionManager and AS' ServiceBindingManager

by jhalliday

> Why can't you use a GUID as discussed on a different thread. ( http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=141496 ) Changing the way arjuna's UIDs are structured is a big deal and a) will take more time than we have before component freeze for AS GA and b) is not worth the hassle in light of the number of alternatives available. > Its a waste of resources (a file handle) to open a port or lock a file. Feel free to provide any other implementation of process uniqueness you happen to like the look of, since the two we provide don't seem to meet with your approval. As long as it returns a value 0-65535 that's uniq in the scope of the O/S it's running on it should be possible to plug it in without too much hassle. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179765#4179765 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179765

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - removing 2.0 docs?

by kukeltje

Guys, A lot of hits on google still point to the 2.0 docs. Many items are not at all valid anymore with 3.x, so I propose to remove those docs from the site and if someone still wants them, we can e.g. trigger the way back machine? Ronald View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179757#4179757 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179757

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Transaction Services] - Re: TransactionManager and AS' ServiceBindingManager

by adrian＠jboss.org

"jhalliday" wrote : | - Use an alternative implementation to get a uniq number. We have a file lock based one too for example. Getting the process ID for the JVM would also work, if there was some clean way to do it without resorting to native code. | Why can't you use a GUID as discussed on a different thread. Its a waste of resources (a file handle) to open a port of lock file. anonymous wrote : | - Change clustering tests to use the SBM. Of course this ignores the fact that customers may also want to run multiple servers using '-'b'. How common is that and will they tolerate having to make a config file change to do it? | -b is the recommended approach since it is easier to configure (assuming you can assign an extra ip address to the machine). It also makes it a lot easier to control routing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179756#4179756 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179756

17 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Federated resource visitor

by alesj

"alesj" wrote : | Or I could actually revert things, | implementing federated versions of RV and ResourceFilter. | Let me check how this works out. Yup, this looks much better approach, since it doesn't require me to change anything. I'll just impl federated version of RV, which will also serve as a holder for recurseFilter, since I need to know if recurse filter refused to accept given file. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4179752#4179752 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4179752

17 years, 3 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