September 2008 - jboss-dev-forums

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jBPM maven group ids

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

If you look at http://snapshots.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/jbpm/ it is already difficult to see which artefacts belong to jbpm3 vs. jbpm4 Using the 3 and 4 in the groupid could make it easier for people browsing the repo online. But, yes it is not in line with the maven versioning philosophy, I am also happy to have a single groupid for both 3 and 4 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175854#4175854 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175854

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: EJB3 Classloader Leak (EJBTHREE-1442)

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

"ALRubinger" wrote : So: | | ejb3-connectors-jboss-beans.xml CL > Proxy Class > Business Interface Class > Deployment CL | | ? | | ...and that's how one CL creates a chain of linked references to the EJB_SLSB CL? Yep, that's it. anonymous wrote : I'd tried (unsuccessfully) to limit the alternate proxy creation before, which resulted in errors in web injection. Can you elaborate on how it failed? The idea I had on http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=141165 of not creating the alternate proxy if the business interface class loaded by the TCCL is the same as the one loaded by the deployment classloader shouldn't have any impact if a version of the business interface class is available via the webapp's WEB-INF and the webapp is using a child-first classloader. The classes wouldn't match and the code would drop into the code that creates the alternate proxy. anonymous wrote : But probably using the TCCL ain't great either; I'll give it another spin. One thing that might help is to not use the TCCL to create the proxy; instead use the business interface class' classloader. Whereby this: | Set<Class<?>> businessInterfaces = new HashSet<Class<?>>(); | businessInterfaces.add(businessInterfaceClass); | constructor = this.createProxyConstructor(businessInterfaces, tcl); the last line becomes: constructor = this.createProxyConstructor(businessInterfaces, businessInterfaceClass.getClassLoader()); This way the ref chain above is broken: ejb3-connectors-jboss-beans.xml CL > Proxy Class > Business Interface Class > Deployment CL becomes, in the case where the Deployment CL classes are visible to the TCCL: Deployment CL > Proxy Class > Business Interface Class > Deployment CL and in cases where a different version of the businessInterfaceClass is loaded from the TCCL: Webapp CL > Proxy Class > Business Interface Class > Webapp CL Neither of those two chains leak the Deployment CL -- at least not to anyplace where it isn't already leaked ;) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175853#4175853 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175853

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Wild Card routing and security

by ataylor

I'm referring to the following code: if (checkAllowable) | { | if (!destinations.contains(address)) | { | throw new MessagingException(MessagingException.ADDRESS_DOES_NOT_EXIST, | "Cannot route to address " + address); | } | } If we route to address a.b.* this obviously doesn't exist as an added address, how do we handle this.# btw 3 should be ' make the check only if the address doesn't contain a wildcard.' View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175850#4175850 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175850

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Multiple 1PC resources in enterprise

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

I added a comment on jdks and jbpm-3.2.3 to the wiki. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175847#4175847 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175847

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: JBAS-5895; Processing too many classes

by alesj

"emuckenhuber" wrote : | From what i've seen it should be parsed to an empty String. So libDir in this case would be "". If that helps you a bit :) How does this play with ear's lib? Afaik in this case it would pick up every jar that's in ear's root? Which is definitely wrong. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175845#4175845 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175845

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Multiple 1PC resources in enterprise

by kukeltje

Yes, I know the list, but that does not say anything about the jdk does it? 4.2.2 runs with 1.4 afaik, but for ejb3 you need at least 1.5. So either the list should be extended with a jdk version or restrictions should be applied. Maybe there should be a link on this wiki as well to the pre 3.3 releases and know-to-be-running containers. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175840#4175840 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175840

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jBPM maven group ids

by kukeltje

why the 3 and 4 in the id? isn't that what the version number should contain? org.jboss.jbpm would be sufficient I guess. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175838#4175838 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175838

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: PostgeSQL runs take too long

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

the first place to look for the cause is the db-recreation inbetween all tests. at one time, to clean the db inbetween the tests, the key constraints were dropped and then a "delete from tablename" for all tables was done. this might have changed to a create-drop of the full schema. that is what should be checked first. recreation can be very costly. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175827#4175827 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175827

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Wild Card routing and security

by timfox

"ataylor" wrote : Currently when a message is routed an ADDRESS_DOES_NOT_EXIST exception is thrown if security is enabled and the destination doesn't exist. With wild card routing this doesn't make sense, so the possible solutions are: | Why doesn't this make sense? Can you elaborate? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175822#4175822 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175822

17 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Wild Card routing and security

by ataylor

Currently when a message is routed an ADDRESS_DOES_NOT_EXIST exception is thrown if security is enabled and the destination doesn't exist. With wild card routing this doesn't make sense, so the possible solutions are: 1. remove the check. 2. only make the check if wild card routing is disabled. 3. make the check only if the address contains a wildcard. wdyt? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4175821#4175821 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4175821

17 years, 7 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 September 2008