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

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by tfennelly

BTW... did you look at the changes in the workspace? Any comments on those? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231358#4231358 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231358

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by tfennelly

"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : For example, someone sets this single parameters to 20 and it works fine with their current listeners. Then they add a new one, opposite type, but forget to 'downgrade' the value. | | Do you not think that having two would make the difference obvious? You could support *both* values without having to force the user into using the lowest one, especially if that lower value happens to be 1. I only think it will make it more obvious to the user (from a config perspective) if the user sees the 2 config params in front of him/her when they encounter the issue, or if they've already run into the issue some time before. I also don't think it would be any more obvious to the user than the option of creating another dedicated "one-session-per-connection" provider block and putting the bus configs for those in there in one place. "Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : We are trying to minimise impact, as this is a platform branch, so major rewrites are out. But this should be a small change which would have a big impact on usability. Do you not agree? I don't disagree, as such ;) I would agree that in theory the change to accomodate this should be straightforward enough, but 2 factors weight against this in my mind... 1) I was under the impression that we were trying to make min changes here and that that would rule out anything that was not absolutely necessary, which I would consider this to be since the user has an "acceptable" (enough IMO) way around it... 2) the current impl is not as straightforward as it should/could be, so making seemingly trivial improvements on top of it would probably just obscure an already obscured chunk of code a little bit more IMO. All that said, I think we could debate this until the cows come home, so why don't we say that I just add a second parameter and get on with it :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231357#4231357 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231357

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"tfennelly" wrote : OK, but that's a config issue as I see it. If you configure it incorrectly, you'll run into problems. Sure, which is why we are discussing easing the configuration for the user. For example, someone sets this single parameters to 20 and it works fine with their current listeners. Then they add a new one, opposite type, but forget to 'downgrade' the value. Do you not think that having two would make the difference obvious? You could support *both* values without having to force the user into using the lowest one, especially if that lower value happens to be 1. "tfennelly" wrote : Sure... here we go: https://svn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossesb/workspace/TF_JmsConnection... Thanks Tom "tfennelly" wrote : I'm not suggesting it's not possible to do this, or that there's no merit in it. It's just that I was under the impression we were trying to make the min changes on this rev and since it appears as though any problems associated with this can be configured away, then... We are trying to minimise impact, as this is a platform branch, so major rewrites are out. But this should be a small change which would have a big impact on usability. Do you not agree? Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231353#4231353 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231353

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by tfennelly

"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : Would they get into "problems" | Well, if you include runtime failures to obtain sessions because the parameter has been setup for whichever is higher then yes, they would run into "problems". OK, but that's a config issue as I see it. If you configure it incorrectly, you'll run into problems. "Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : It's just that I think this would complicate and already convoluted implementation a little bit more. Maybe we could save this for the "improved" version of this class, whenever that happens :) | Perhaps we need to see what you have done in that case, as it seems straight forward in the current codebase. Could you move this across to a workspace? Sure... here we go: https://svn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossesb/workspace/TF_JmsConnection... I'm not suggesting it's not possible to do this, or that there's no merit in it. It's just that I was under the impression we were trying to make the min changes on this rev and since it appears as though any problems associated with this can be configured away, then... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231349#4231349 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231349

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"tfennelly" wrote : OK, we're fine on that then because the default behavior is as is now. Grand "tfennelly" wrote : Would they get into "problems" Well, if you include runtime failures to obtain sessions because the parameter has been setup for whichever is higher then yes, they would run into "problems". "tfennelly" wrote : It's just that I think this would complicate and already convoluted implementation a little bit more. Maybe we could save this for the "improved" version of this class, whenever that happens :) Perhaps we need to see what you have done in that case, as it seems straight forward in the current codebase. Could you move this across to a workspace? Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231342#4231342 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231342

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: History information

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i've created https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPM-2261 so that i don't forget View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231341#4231341 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231341

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: REST integration within JBoss ESB

by ScottDawson

Burr mentioned anonymous wrote : important verbs (e.g. GET, PUT, POST, DELETE) One thing I think should get a high priority is the addition of support for PUT and DELETE in the HttpRouter. It's currently possible to respond to all four verbs with the JBR listener and it's possible to send GETs and POSTs with the HttpRouter. So the two missing operations are the outbound PUT and DELETE. Thanks, Scott View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231340#4231340 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231340

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by tfennelly

"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : Sorry, typo. Should have been "When you saying 'two separate parameters', do you mean allow it to be configured centrally in the jbossesb-properties.xml and then override it in the JNDI config?" | I hadn't meant that as I had assumed that the default behaviour would be as now, so if the user does not specify it then it works the same. OK, we're fine on that then because the default behavior is as is now. "Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : I was thinking more from the configuration aspect, supporting both an XA and a non-XA version of this parameter within JNDI. | | If we choose to do this then the user can set it up once in the jms-provider and the same configuration/pool can be shared between all the associated listeners, whether transactional or not. | | If there is only a single JNDI parameter then the user may get into problems if they mix transactional/non-transactional listeners and would have to be aware of the issues. Would they get into "problems", or would they simply be eating more connections off the provider than they needed to in the non-XA? It's just that I think this would complicate and already convoluted implementation a little bit more. Maybe we could save this for the "improved" version of this class, whenever that happens :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231339#4231339 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231339

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"tfennelly" wrote : Sorry, typo. Should have been "When you saying 'two separate parameters', do you mean allow it to be configured centrally in the jbossesb-properties.xml and then override it in the JNDI config?" I hadn't meant that as I had assumed that the default behaviour would be as now, so if the user does not specify it then it works the same. I was thinking more from the configuration aspect, supporting both an XA and a non-XA version of this parameter within JNDI. If we choose to do this then the user can set it up once in the jms-provider and the same configuration/pool can be shared between all the associated listeners, whether transactional or not. If there is only a single JNDI parameter then the user may get into problems if they mix transactional/non-transactional listeners and would have to be aware of the issues. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231334#4231334 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231334

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

by tfennelly

"tfennelly" wrote : When you saying allow it to be configured centrally in the jbossesb-properties.xml and then override it in the JNDI config? Sorry, typo. Should have been "When you saying 'two separate parameters', do you mean allow it to be configured centrally in the jbossesb-properties.xml and then override it in the JNDI config?" View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231329#4231329 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231329

16 years, 10 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 2009