March 2009 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Lock striping broken for Second Level Cache use case

by jason.greene＠jboss.com

"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : "bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : PerElementLockContainer.locks is using the default CHM c'tor which means 16 segments. That's low since this will be a very write-heavy map. | | Good point. Updating this to use the concurrencyLevel value, which defaults to 500. You might want to use something a lot less than that. 500 is a small value, and that creates 500 hashmaps + locks. You only need a few per cpu. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219468#4219468 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219468

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: FTP Provider Checksum validation

by bhargasr

Thanks for your prompt response. How can the XSD based validation be done for JMS messages? Further, presume if we write a custom Action, the entire message parsing will hv to be coded for. Is this the best approach? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219465#4219465 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219465

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: FTP Provider Checksum validation

by tfennelly

There is an XSD based validation action available. Implementing a custom actions is also an option. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219463#4219463 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219463

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: FTP Provider Checksum validation

by bhargasr

How should validations be normally done in the ESB? What is the approach to validate the incoming request, response? Is writing custom Actions with Java code, the preferred approach ? Kindly elaborate. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219462#4219462 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219462

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Kosmos] - Integrating KOSMOS with EXO Portal

by Bond007

Hi, I am trying to integrate Kosmos with Exo Portal. I have downloaded "exo-eXoPortal-2.5-tomcat.zip" and folowed the same steps given in reference manual. I have deployed the kosmos-portlet.war and kosmos-server.war onto tomcat successfully. In the reference manual, you have said "Go to page edit mode and add the Kosmos portlets to the page. Change back to view mode". How do i do it? I mean how do i go to Edit mode? Thanks! View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219431#4219431 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219431

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Lock striping broken for Second Level Cache use case

by manik.surtani＠jboss.com

"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : PerElementLockContainer.locks is using the default CHM c'tor which means 16 segments. That's low since this will be a very write-heavy map. Good point. Updating this to use the concurrencyLevel value, which defaults to 500. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219412#4219412 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219412

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Confused about versioning

by mauromol

"kukeltje" wrote : From what I know there is no functional and api difference between 3.2.x and 3.3.x, so you should be able to use 3.2.x from now on. The only difference was the console afaik.... Actually, these are the differences I could remember: - the DB schema for 3.3.x has one more column in JBPM_NODE than that of 3.2.x (column PARENTLOCKMODE_) - some methods were refactorized from 3.2.2 to 3.3.0: for instance org.jbpm.util.ClassLoaderUtil.getProcessClassLoader(ProcessDefinition) was moved to org.jbpm.JbpmConfiguration.getProcessClassLoader(ProcessDefinition) Unless a "rollback" or a compatibility enhancement between 3.2.x and 3.3.x has been performed, it is not really true that there are no differences between the two branches except for the GWTConsole... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219393#4219393 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219393

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Lock striping broken for Second Level Cache use case

by manik.surtani＠jboss.com

Ok, working on another approach here. Incorporating Brian's idea of reusing the lock in the CHM (you're right, we're not striving for fairness here) plus replacing the recursion with a loop will improve performance. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219389#4219389 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219389

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Lock striping broken for Second Level Cache use case

by manik.surtani＠jboss.com

"jason.greene(a)jboss.com" wrote : Ah I see this is to handle the case of a blocked/queued thread acquiring a lock. Hmm this kind of defeats the performance benefit of aqs lock queueing Yeah I know it completely defeats the purpose of AQS queueing and just uses the lock as a token. The real "lock" here is holding a position in the CHM. Sucky, but well... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219387#4219387 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219387

17 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of AOP on JBoss (Aspects/JBoss)] - Re: Separate AOP deployers out of AS

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

"stale.pedersen(a)jboss.org" wrote : | i guess the deployers should be removed from the as repo, but if im not mistaken this requires that we have pushed up a non-snapshot version of the jboss-aop-deployers module? Yes, I'll do a 2.1.0 release when I am back next week View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4219316#4219316 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4219316

17 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 March 2009