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

[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: Build Contract for jbossall-client.jar

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

That is already a critical issue, just make the change to a manifest only jar next week. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141456#4141456 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141456

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JCA on JBoss] - Re: JBAS-5278 Errors .

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

The real question is.. why the test disables <xa-transaction/>? We could certainly uncomment the <xa-transaction> and investigate why the failure is happening. Adding the xa-transaction might remove the failure condition but might hide a bug depending on the intention of the test. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141398#4141398 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141398

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: JBossXB pom

by dimitris＠jboss.org

Right. Anybody knows what's the maven way to specify libs that would normally go to the endorsed directory? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141368#4141368 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141368

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: jbossxb 1.0.0.SP2

by alex.loubyansky＠jboss.com

Yes, I did use the same slide version (non-brewed). It has been released. Release notes http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12311786&style... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141328#4141328 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141328

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: Build Contract for jbossall-client.jar

by wolfc

Since we're not allowed to '+1' on the forum. I say vote for http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-4355. :-P View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141327#4141327 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141327

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: migrating TransactionManager and Invokers to POJO

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

"kabir.khan(a)jboss.com" wrote : I could add something to AOP to determine if the instance annotation actually ends up resulting in more aspects (not lifecycle callbacks), and if that is the case return a proxy? http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141314#4141314 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141315#4141315 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141315

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of AOP on JBoss (Aspects/JBoss)] - Change GeneratedAOPProxyFactory check for whether should cre

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

>From http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141090#4141090 "kabir.khan(a)jboss.com" wrote : I could add something to AOP to determine if the instance annotation actually ends up resulting in more aspects (not lifecycle callbacks), and if that is the case return a proxy? At the moment the GeneratedAOPProxyFactory will create a proxy if there are some introductions or if there are interface introductions, mixins, simplemetadata or instance level metadata | if (!params.getContainerCache().hasAspects() && !params.getContainerCache().requiresInstanceAdvisor()) | { | return params.getTarget(); | } | else | { | proxyClass = generateProxy(params); | } | IIRC the reason for this condition was that having an introductions, metadata etc would mean that we could match more pointcuts. However, at the time this check is done, an instance advisor will have been generated if the condition was met, so I think the check should be changed to only return a proxy if the instance advisor has more aspects than the class advisor? Something like the following (pseudo-code): | ContainerCache cache = params.getContainerCache(); | | if (!cache.hasAspects() || (cache.hasAspects() && cache.hasMoreAspectsForInstanceThanInClassContainer())) | { | return params.getTarget(); | } | else | { | proxyClass = generateProxy(params); | } | This would mean modifying the aop-mc-int tests under org.jboss.test.microcontainer.matrix.mc.test (and possibly some others) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141314#4141314 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141314

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: jboss metadata pom

by dimitris＠jboss.org

The first thing is to have clear guidelines to apply to whatever new version is produced. This includes groupId/componentIds, repository location and versioning. While doing this, keep notes (JIRA tasks?) of things that need fixing in the poms of future version of related projects. Migration of legacy stuff to the legacy repo could happen in the background. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141312#4141312 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141312

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: JBossXB pom

by alex.loubyansky＠jboss.com

Yes, that's the reason why they are released together. But actually xml-apis.jar is a part of JDK's rt.jar. So, unless it's put into endorsed it's won't be used. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141310#4141310 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141310

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: JBossXB pom

by dimitris＠jboss.org

I'm seeing the problem from a higher level module (jboss-metadata) that uses both MC and XB, with each one declaring different versions of xerces impl + api. If xercesImpl is tied to the xml-apis version (I guess it is), then maybe this is where the depedency should be added. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141289#4141289 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141289

18 years

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 April 2008