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

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - Re: PortUtil - Hits Max Will Always Hand Out 65535

by ron.sigal＠jboss.com

After getNextPort() returns MAX_LEGAL_PORT, the next call to getNextPort() will return MIN_UNPRIVILEGED_PORT. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135032#4135032 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135032

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Remoting, Unified Invokers] - PortUtil - Hits Max Will Always Hand Out 65535

by jcreynol

I think I've done all the requisite searching to see if this has been discussed elsewhere and I'm slightly convinced it may be a bug that hasn't been uncovered in that I'm not certain it has been hit as hard in testing, as it is in our production environment of 6000+ Swing Clients invoking various EJBs for 10 hours straight at sub-second intervals. Some of the behaviors we have seen -- server crashes without log details or errors and hung clients that never receive response nor exception -- may possibly be related to port issues. private static synchronized int getNextPort() | { | if (portCounter < MAX_LEGAL_PORT) | return portCounter++; | | portCounter = MIN_UNPRIVILEGED_PORT; | return MAX_LEGAL_PORT; | } Since these methods are static and portCounter is static, overtime this socket connectors will grow to where all will try MAX_LEGAL_PORT to no avail, no? As an example, here's the log entry 1.5 seconds before the server was auto-restarted by a cron job: | 2008-03-07 12:28:14,689 INFO (WorkerThread#140[10.29.10.109:64619]) [xxx.dao.RDBContactEventLogDAO] Option size: 2 | INFO (main) [com.arjuna.ats.jbossatx.jta.TransactionManagerService] JBossTS Transaction Service (JTA version) - JBoss Inc. Shouldn't we drop back down to the MIN_UNPRIVILEGED_PORT if the MAX_LEGAL_PORT won't work? As it is, the portCounter is initialized to a random number so x number of ports between MIN_UNPRIVILIGED_PORT and RANDOM_PORT go unchecked... Any thoughts on the topic are very much appreciated. Thanks, John View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135027#4135027 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135027

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jBPM Classloading

by kukeltje

not specifically... if you make the changes in the code and post them here or attach them to a jira issue that is fine to. CVS access is only needed if you want real committer access for more than one patch View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135026#4135026 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135026

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Updated Codebase

by adrian＠jboss.org

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | There's still some failures in the tests (I haven't run the aop-mc-int tests, | I already know they are broken because Kabir hasn't finished ;-) | If this proves to be a big stumbling block, we can always revert the config in SingleSchemaBIndingResolver for aop-beans. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135023#4135023 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135023

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Updated Codebase

by adrian＠jboss.org

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Anyway its easy to fix. You just need to be able to specify additional | root classes when creating the schema, e.g. | When I say it is easy to fix, I mean the feature is trivial to implement. Don't try it yet since it doesn't exist. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135022#4135022 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135022

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Updated Codebase

by adrian＠jboss.org

I've updated the MC codebase with the following changes: 1) JBoss Reflect and JBoss MDR (MetaDataRepository) 2) JBossXB latest snapshot 3) Now uses JAXB style annotations for parsing While I was doing it I also reworked the pom and .classpath dependencies to make them easier to manage. (I'll explain/discuss this on a different thread next week). There's still some failures in the tests (I haven't run the aop-mc-int tests, I already know they are broken because Kabir hasn't finished ;-) * Alias tests (expected) * Policy tests (expected) * Reliance rules (knock on from aop-mc-int) The issue I can see with reliance rules is that there is a top level element (lifecycle-describe) that is not reachable from AOPDeployment. I thought I'd added something for this, but obviously I dreamt it, or it was in a different context. Maybe it was in first prototype of the annotations and I never ported it? Anyway its easy to fix. You just need to be able to specify additional root classes when creating the schema, e.g. | @JBossXMLSchema(..., | additional= | { | DescribeLifecycleBeanMetaDataFactory.class, | ConfigureLifecycleBeanMetaDataFactory.class | } | ) | public class AOPDeployment | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135021#4135021 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135021

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: What Versions of AS5 Will EJB3 Plugin Support?

by ALRubinger

Anil, if you're concerned about location of code and separation of concerns, please start another thread and I'm sure someone with more architectural influence will weigh in. Adrian, when did I infer that EJB3 will define AS security? Or that I'd be moving the deployers? All I want to know is what is expected of the Plugin looking forward so that I can account for it now. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135018#4135018 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135018

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: What Versions of AS5 Will EJB3 Plugin Support?

by adrian＠jboss.org

"ALRubinger" wrote : "anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : Why should the ejb3 security interceptors exist in an external project? | | Because EJB3 should not require the AS runtime. | | S, | ALR So what? If you run in embedded you just drop the security interceptor. If you run in Tomcat, you replace it with a version that uses Tomcat Realms. That still doesn't mean that EJB3 should define how security works in JBossAS. Make a sentence out the foillowing words: "Before Put Horse Cart" :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135017#4135017 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135017

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: What Versions of AS5 Will EJB3 Plugin Support?

by ALRubinger

"anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : Why should the ejb3 security interceptors exist in an external project? Because EJB3 should not require the AS runtime. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135013#4135013 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135013

18 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: What Versions of AS5 Will EJB3 Plugin Support?

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : "ALRubinger" wrote : "anil.saldhana(a)jboss.com" wrote : Added to that, IMO the interceptors (including the security interceptors) should not be in the externalized project. They should be sitting in the ejb3 module in the AS workspace. | | | | So what about EJB3 Standalone and Embedded? They don't need interceptors? This isn't an AS integration point. | | | | The security aspect (to give it its correct name ;-) is a product of the security | project. It's an implementation detail. | Only the runtime metadata it uses is "shared" and then only if it needs to be, | e.g. converting ejb3 metadata to jboss-security's internal model. | | The EJB2 security interceptors and Tomcat Security Integration code (tomcat realms) exist in the AS5 workspace in server and tomcat modules. Why should the ejb3 security interceptors exist in an external project? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4135007#4135007 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4135007

18 years, 1 month

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 March 2008