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

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Replacing org.jboss.aspects.security.SecurityClientInter

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

What's j2eemods? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150532#4150532 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150532

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Replacing org.jboss.aspects.security.SecurityClientInter

by ALRubinger

Let's not forget the typical gotcha of j2eemods :) S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150529#4150529 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150529

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Replacing org.jboss.aspects.security.SecurityClientIntercept

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

FYI I've found a few cases where org.jboss.aspects.security.SecurityClientInterceptor is declared in xxx-interceptors-aop.xml files in the testsuite. The stateful tests at least will fail with a CNFE if that is declared. So, I'm going to change these to use org.jboss.ejb3.security.client.SecurityClientInterceptor which AFAICT is the correct class. Changing in src/test/resources: test/bank/bank-ejb3-interceptors-aop.xml test/clientinterceptor/clientinterceptor-aop.xml test/stateful/statefulTest-ejb3-interceptors-aop.xml test-configs/removedislocal/deploy/ejb3-interceptors-aop.xml View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150528#4150528 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150528

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Proxy Tasks for Delegation

by ALRubinger

"ALRubinger" wrote : 4) Add tests to ProxyFactoryRegistryUnitTestCaseBase that check to ensure that: | | * ProxyFactory.start() is called upon ProxyFactoryRegistry.registerProxyFactory() | * ProxyFactory.stop() is called upon ProxyFactoryRegistry.deregisterProxyFactory() Revision 73366. S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150522#4150522 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150522

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Serialization of ProxiedStatefulBeanContext

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

Discussion of http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-1355 Basic question here is how much effort we want to put into this, since all this code is meant to be replaced by EJBTHREE-1026 in 5.1. Problem here is ProxiedStatefulBeanContext is a subclass of StatefulBeanContext, but really doesn't function as one, i.e doesn't actually use any of the fields of superclasses and overrides all methods. Carlo added some invariant checks to the StatefulBeanContext class hierarchy and eliminated the no-arg constructors that allowed violation of those invariants. Quite appropriate for StatefulBeanContext. But the invariants aren't quite applicable to ProxiedStatefulBeanContext, and eliminating the no-arg constructors in the class hierarchy prevents proper serialization/externalization. A correct class design here would be to have StatefulBeanContext and ProxiedStatefulBeanContext both be unrelated impls of some common interface. But that's a lot of work. Better IMHO to just go with the EJBTHREE-1026 solution in 5.0 before making that much effort! I suggest for 5.0 we just restore the (protected) no arg constructors to StatefulBeanContext and superclasses, mark them as deprecated and document them as only for use by ProxiedStatefulBeanContext. I've done that on my local checkout and most of the clustered sfsb tests now pass. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150521#4150521 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150521

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Inconsistent usage of the Ejb3Deployment.deploymentScope

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : In general nothing should depend on the form of the object name. Agreed. There's a unit test that builds up an object name, meant to do the same as what the Ejb3Container does. It failed due to the addition of the ear attribute. That's no big deal; test should be better. I was more concerned about the general issue; the object name thing is just what got me looking into it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150508#4150508 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150508

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: organization of the enterprise module

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

"alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : The current status: | | * QA: currently there are two tests, one for a one-shot timer and one for a repeating timer. No tests exist for JTA synchronization in the case of either success or failure. I will backport those from the PVM enteprise tests. | that is a good start, indeed. this reminds me: what is the status on describing the existing and missing scenarios on the pvm enterprise test cases ? "alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : | * Configuration: seems done, pending the result of the additional tests. | ok "alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : | * Documentation: absent. | make sure that at least the docs don't contain any references to the old stuff. either the parts in the config files. or if there is a description of the SLSB timer thing, make sure it's replaced with the entity explanation. "alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : | * Migration: you mean, from the session bean approach? Please give me more details. if people are migrating from jbpm 3.2.2 to 3.2.3 and using the enterprise scheduler service, is there anything that they should do for this ? updates to the db ? making sure the queues are empty ? all such things (even if it is nothing) should be documented in the release.notes.html View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150506#4150506 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150506

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Inconsistent usage of the Ejb3Deployment.deploymentScope

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

In general nothing should depend on the form of the object name. I'll review the ear expectations as part of http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/EJBTHREE-1359. The DeploymentPersistenceUnitResolver has been updated for the change in behavior. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150503#4150503 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150503

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: MaxIO, MinFiles and JournalFileSize

by timfox

The idea with freeFiles being pre-opened is to prevent a pause when the journal moves to the next file as it opens the file. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150499#4150499 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150499

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Inconsistent usage of the Ejb3Deployment.deploymentScope

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

Ejb3Deployment.getScopeKernelName() also treats the presence of a DeploymentScope as indicating an ear. Don't see any usage of that method anywhere though. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4150491#4150491 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4150491

17 years, 11 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 May 2008