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

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

by alesj

"alesj" wrote : | And if there is a real demand for this "outside" programmatic usage, | it's trivial to add new declarative way of using this. This being one of them. :-) "kabir.khan(a)jboss.org" wrote : | An annotation could be used on the deployment or per bean, e.g. @NoAop | View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230361#4230361 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230361

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by alesj

"jaikiran" wrote : But in the long term, shouldn't we be moving away from this default? | No, that's why it's called *transparent* AOP integration. ;-) You can only argue that the AOP mechanism is not performant enough, but that's as far as I agree with you. Although this comes with a cost, it does bring lots of nice features. They are mostly true in a sense of AOP; aspects, concerns separation, ... @JMX, @JNDI, @Password, @(add-your-own-metadata-here) are good examples of this. And if I was a user, that's what I would want too, out-of-the-box. But yeah, there should be a way to explicitly avoid this, and this is/can be achieved with this new DB per MD mechanism. And if there is a real demand for this "outside" programmatic usage, it's trivial to add new declarative way of using this. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230359#4230359 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230359

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBM 2 default configuration, what should it be

by ataylor

anonymous wrote : I think that in our standard config we should only specify a value in the config if there is a need to specifically override a default - i.e. the configs will be almost empty. +1. Should we have the invm acceptor/connectors configured by default or just Netty? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230349#4230349 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230349

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JBM 2 default configuration, what should it be

by timfox

I think that in our standard config we should only specify a value in the config if there is a need to specifically override a default - i.e. the configs will be almost empty. Right now I am creating a "full config", for illustration purposes and the docs. We can include this in the distro too, as an example of everything specified. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230345#4230345 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230345

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by tfennelly

Yeah... the name of the JmsConnectionPool class is probably confusing the situation a bit, since it's really pooling session. Anyway... yes... as I see it, the JmsConnectionPool interface would remain as is. The mods would all be internal to the JmsConnectionPool class. I think the Session->Connection relationship can be tracked easily in either case. I think it will be 6 of one half dozen of the other. With option #1 you'd have a slightly more complicated "free session" lookup because you'd need to look in multiple pools. With option #2 you'd have a slightly more complex lookup of all sessions associated with a connection (e.g. for connection cleanup) because they're all in one pool. In either case, it's not rocket science anyway. I'll post back soon with more specific details. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230344#4230344 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230344

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

"jaikiran" wrote : | 1) For non-programmatic MC bean deployments (i.e. just drop the -beans.xml file), there's no way to override this default dependency builder | An annotation could be used on the deployment or per bean, e.g. @NoAop View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230342#4230342 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230342

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - JBM 2 default configuration, what should it be

by ataylor

I think the default jms configuration should contain 1 default Connection Factory named ConnectionFactory and 2 queues DLQ and ExpiryQueue. As far as security goes I think we should have one default user 'guest' who has a 'guest' role. There should be one catch all security setting (#) that applies only the send, consume, createTempQueue and deleteTempQueue to ther guest role only. admin, deleteDurableQueue and createDurableQueue will need to be added by the user. There should be no security match for admin either There should be one catch all queue settings that basically applies the defaults. Also I'll remove the jbm-queues from the standalone config so its the same as the AS config and I will rename all the beans files to jbm-jboss-beans.xml, this means the user should just be able to copy over the examples config if this is what they want. I'll remove any commented out config from all the config files, its messy and we have this covered in the examples now. regarding the jbm-configuration.xml file, should we leave all the defaults in or trim them down similar to what we do in the examples config? wdyt? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230340#4230340 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230340

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by jaikiran

In the meantime, "alesj" wrote : "jaikiran" wrote : | | 1) Can the AOPDependencyBuilder be removed as the default | | | No, as this would break all the @JMX definitions. | Plus probably a ton of other stuff. ;-) | I agree, there's going to be some stuff which going to be break (till we fix it :) ). But in the long term, shouldn't we be moving away from this default? Here's why i think the AOPDependencyBuilder default might not be a good idea: 1) For non-programmatic MC bean deployments (i.e. just drop the -beans.xml file), there's no way to override this default dependency builder 2) Even for programmatic MC bean deployments, not everyone will be aware of this issue (or the internal implementation of MC), so most of the times, they are going to end up without any overridden (better performing) dependency builder in the metadata 3) If this dependency builder is for beans that use @JMX or something similar, then i guess there might be some place where this AOPDependencyBuilder can be attached/injected internally by MC to ensure that only such deployments are handled by this builder? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230327#4230327 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230327

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Where is the DDL for Messaging?

by timfox

Not sure what you mean by "the better place is nowhere". I'm not so worried about the examples, but the DDL must be there, otherwise users who want to use another database than HSQL will have to get it from JBM SVN, which is clearly wrong in my book. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230323#4230323 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230323

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by jaikiran

"alesj" wrote : | can you try it out? | Sure, will try it out today. "alesj" wrote : | This will (mostly) even add more penalty to the performance, | as we have to check MetaData for DependencyBuilder instance. | Although it shouldn't be much, as it's only a few Map entry checks. I haven't seen the internal implementation, but i believe, this should be far better than the AOP stuff that was done for the MC beans. I'll try out a simple test to see how much improvement this brings in. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4230321#4230321 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4230321

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