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

[Design of Clustering on JBoss] - Re: Default JGroups Configs

by ALRubinger

"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : Somehow setting the property to "" ??? That's what I'm looking at now. :) S, ALR View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230491#4230491 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230491

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: DESCRIBE phase - Dependency builders for MC Beans

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | You'd be better off speaking to Kabir about how to optimise/avoid the AOP checking | for what you want than getting Ales to hack things into the MC that are fundamentally wrong. I guess this means I can cleanup my hack. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230486#4230486 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230486

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Clustering on JBoss] - Re: Default JGroups Configs

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

Yep, jaikiran's correct. Those properties are very often not set and the default comes from the system property substitution logic. Can you think of anything you might have done that would interfere with that? Somehow setting the property to "" ??? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230485#4230485 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230485

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: DESCRIBE phase - Dependency builders for MC Beans

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : The question is how to force this? | I don't see any good way. | | But otoh if we leave users such freedom, some mechanism should be in place. | I wrote the stuff and I got it wrong, no question about it that the users will/would too. :-) | Maybe have more fields in your annotation, and validate the combinations during one of the early phases (PreInstall or Describe)? "alesj" wrote : | Another question is where to keep this info, so we don't have to do multiple lookups; | e.g. in DescribeAction, InstantiateAction, ... | How costly is an MDR lookup? Compared to the zillion times it is currently hit at the moment to do the pointcut matching, it should be negligible. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230484#4230484 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230484

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Naming, @JNDI and OnDemand

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | We need a standard annotation that is provided independent of the implementation. | AS integration project is here: | http://viewvc.jboss.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/jbossas/projects/integration/ | as previously discussed on the dev list it is supposed to allow users to not have to | worry about the implemementations of how it is actually implemented. | e.g. in maven you import org.jboss.integration:naming not jnpserver or aop.argely untested, but you were in a hurry for me to commit it. :-) | Sure, the only problem I see is that we can end up with 1M sub-projects containing a single @annotation. Perhaps some common integration annotations should be under the same sub-project. e.g. org.jboss.integration:api or org.jboss.integration:annotations View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230483#4230483 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230483

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: DESCRIBE phase - Dependency builders for MC Beans

by adrian＠jboss.org

"jaikiran" wrote : While i am trying these things out i'll also check, in the current AS, how many beans need this AOPDependencyBuilder. Just want to reduce the number of MC clients that need to add this additional configuration to override the behaviour. | How would you know? The idea of the AOPDependencyBuilder is to make a bean depend upon an aspect. Where only AOP knows that it applies by the looking at its configuration (which is user configurable). Sure there's not much configured by default except the @JMX aspect but that doesn't mean that users won't configure aspects (including for our beans). Its the very nature of aspects being cross cutting that makes the AOPDependencyBuilder required in the first place. i.e. you have to ask aop whether there are any aspects that need to be applied to this pojo and therefore we need to wait for that aspect to be deployed (which might in turn depend upon other things) before deploying the pojo. Otherwise you could just configure the dependency directly on the bean. Just removing the AOPDependencyBuilder might make it faster. But all it will mean is that it will fail later when AOP tries to apply an aspect that is not fully deployed yet. If you really want to exclude the AOPDependencyBuilder processing from a bean then you should really use one of AOP's existing mechanisms like exclude "org.jboss.ejb3.*" from having aspects applied to it (that can be configured on the AspectManager). That way AOP should be able to "short circuit" the aspect dependency checking for those pojos using the same "filters". You'd be better off speaking to Kabir about how to optimise/avoid the AOP checking for what you want than getting Ales to hack things into the MC that are fundamentally wrong. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230481#4230481 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230481

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: DESCRIBE phase - Dependency builders for MC Beans

by alesj

The question is how to force this? I don't see any good way. But otoh if we leave users such freedom, some mechanism should be in place. I wrote the stuff and I got it wrong, no question about it that the users will/would too. :-) Another question is where to keep this info, so we don't have to do multiple lookups; e.g. in DescribeAction, InstantiateAction, ... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230480#4230480 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230480

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - names for personal task list and takable task list

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

hi, i want decide on the names for the 2 specific task lists in the console: 1) the list of tasks directly assigned to the authenticated user. aka personal task list, aka assigned task list 2) the list of tasks that the currently authenticated user can take. aka group task list, aka takable task list whatever name we choose, we must use the same in the api, impl as in the console. suggestions ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230479#4230479 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230479

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: DESCRIBE phase - Dependency builders for MC Beans

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

Yes, I think AOPConstructorJoinPoint without the AOPDependencyBuilder is pointless, and vice versa. It would cause problems if the aspects actually have dependencies | <aop:aspect xmlns:aop="urn:jboss:aop-beans:1.0" | name="TxAdvice" | class="org.acme.aspects.TxAspect" | <property name="txManager"><inject bean="TxManager"/></property> | </aop:aspect> | <aop:bind xmlns:aop="urn:jboss:aop-beans:1.0" | pointcut="execution(* *->@org.acme.Tx(..))">; | <advice aspect="TxAdvice" name="invoke"/> | </aop:bind> | but not really of they don't | <aop:aspect xmlns:aop="urn:jboss:aop-beans:1.0" | name="Blah" | class="org.acme.aspects.Blah" | </aop:aspect> | <aop:bind xmlns:aop="urn:jboss:aop-beans:1.0" | pointcut="execution(* *->@org.acme.Blah(..))">; | <advice aspect="Blah" name="invoke"/> | </aop:bind> | But if you are sure you don't want aop for a set of beans, then both should be turned off View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230478#4230478 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230478

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: DESCRIBE phase - Dependency builders for MC Beans

by alesj

I'm just adding tests for this and I stumbled upon a hurdle. :-) Having non-AOP DB doesn't mean we'll use non-AOP ConstructorJoinPoint. And this could lead to weird behavior; aspect being applied w/o dependencies being properly resolved. I'll check how I can tie the two things together. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230477#4230477 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230477

16 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 2009