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

[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: Maven Version ranges - Snapshots during development

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

Taken from "BetterBuildsWithMaven": anonymous wrote : "Whether you use snapshots until the final release, or release betas as milestones along the way, you | should deploy them to a snapshot repository as is discussed in Chapter 7 of this book. This will ensure | that the beta versions are used in a range only if the project has declared the snapshot (or | development) repository explicitly." View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141190#4141190 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141190

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

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

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

Yes, we should clean it up before CR1 and use consistent naming schemes across artifacts. I like Pauls idea (http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=132942) to start over with a clean repository so that in order to check you could disable the legacy one which contains artifacts with old names. If we don't do it now, we stick with it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141187#4141187 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141187

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Root cause with iDependOn equal null

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

I believe it should just be <UNKNOWN + item.getName() +> so all dependencies on the unknown provider of name are seen as the same. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141152#4141152 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141152

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Circular dependency error msg problem

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

Unless there was some reason to not attempt all dependencies resolution, then yes, I would say process them by updating resolveDependencies. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141151#4141151 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141151

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Build POM Versions

by ALRubinger

I've updated some of the EJB3 Projects' Build Parent versions: http://fisheye.jboss.org/changelog/JBossAS/?cs=71659 ...as the build was failing. Which projects should be on Build 0.13.1-SNAPSHOT? Which on 0.13.0? S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141140#4141140 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141140

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

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

by pgier

I agree with all your suggestions for fixing the inconsistencies (org.jboss.virtual, etc..) I think eventually we want nothing or very few things with a groupId of "org.jboss". Instead they should have something like "org.jboss.<project-name>". View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141130#4141130 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141130

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Moving parsing to JBossXB.Builder/JAXB

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

I have commited the JAXB parsing to aop-mc-int, and updated the tests to work with that. The tests on a fresh checkout seem fine. JMXDecoratedTestCase fails for the reasons I mention here: http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141090#4141090 http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=132827 I will leave the legacy org.jboss.aop.microcontainer.beans.beanmetadatafactory package in place until the SchemaBindingInitializers have been killed off for good View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141102#4141102 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141102

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: AOPConstructorJoinpoint::methodHasAnnotations is wrong

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

As mentioned here http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141090#4141090 I am having second thoughts on the @InstanceAnnotation View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141092#4141092 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141092

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

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

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

Having thought about it a bit, I don't like the @InstanceAnnotation from JBMDR-21. It works fine for the majority of cases where people use the lifecycle-configure stuff. BUT what if they for whatever reason also want to do things like | <bind execution="* @JMX->*(..)"> | <interceptor-ref name="JMXTrackingAspect"/> | </bind> | Then since the JMX annotation is ignored due to the @InstanceAnnotation annotation, no proxy is created. I added the following to your test locally | <interceptor xmlns="urn:jboss:aop-beans:1.0" class="org.jboss.test.microcontainer.beans.TestAspect"/> | | <bind xmlns="urn:jboss:aop-beans:1.0" pointcut="all((a)org.jboss.test.microcontainer.support.ContainsIA2)"> | <advice aspect="org.jboss.test.microcontainer.beans.TestAspect" name="advice"/> | </bind> | | <bean name="Bean7" class="org.jboss.test.microcontainer.support.SimpleBeanImpl"> | <annotation>@org.jboss.test.microcontainer.support.ContainsIA2</annotation> | </bean> | @ContainsIA2 is similar to @ContainsIA. The test fails on | assertIsAspectized("Bean7"); | Bean7 should have a proxy. I don't think it is a good idea for the annotation to dictate the usage? 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? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141090#4141090 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141090

18 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Redesign extended persistence context

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

This got put on the back burner for AS 5 beta3 as it wasn't an API issue. Then again pre-JBW as EJB3 was being broken apart and seemed unusable. I've been back at it these last few weeks. Please see http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=DevEJB3NewSFSBCache for current status. Carlo, need your input on the 2 "Major Unresolved Issues" discussed on the wiki page. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4141070#4141070 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4141070

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