Adrian, sorry for the stupid question,
But are the old maven managed and metatype artifact names now combined into jboss-man-aggregator?
We had
| <dependency>
| <groupId>org.jboss.man</groupId>
| <artifactId>jboss-managed</artifactId>
| <version>${microcontainer.version}</version>
| <scope>provided</scope>
| </dependency>
|
| <dependency>
| <groupId>org.jboss.man</groupId>
| <artifactId>jboss-metatype</artifactId>
| <version>${microcontainer.version}</version>
| <scope>provided</scope>
| </dependency>
|
in our pom for dependencies, and I am updating it.
Thanks
Mark
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135374#4135374
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135374
"anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : What you need when you get cranky is a nice spanking. ;)
Please move this to "Design of Inappropriate Advances in the Workplace".
"anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : The issue is the effort in isolating the functionality in bits that need to be unit tested. You have got to start sometime in getting there. :)
So I think we're of the same views there. You bring up some great points, I think we just need to figure our migration path to this type of setup, and slowly introduce this externalization into our workflow.
S,
ALR
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135369#4135369
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135369
Support of the BRMS console per se is not a feature of the Rule Service. The Rule Service (as I have extended it), supports the RuleAgentAPI. This allows a rule package to be pulled from either the BRMS (via URL) or a file system.
Support for the BRMS (as in support as part of the subscription), is a related issue and has concerns related to the BRMS quality / stability as Kurt points out. It may be that the next release of the SOA Platform rule service provides RuleAgentAPI support without BRMS support.
Also to add to Kurt's comments, the proposed Rule Service would also support Decision Tables.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135361#4135361
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135361
OK, as I said before I am looking at areas that require decoupling:
a) Meta data retrieval
b) Invocation handling
For retrieving web service relevant meta data from a ejb3 deployment, I think the contract would cover certain Container methods and annotations representing web service meta data:
| Container {
|
| [...]
|
| String getEjbName();
| String getBeanClassName();
| <T> T getAnnotation(Class<T>);
| }
|
That's basically already given, I would just need supply the annotations and their implementation.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135360#4135360
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135360