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

[Design of Management Features on JBoss] - Re: JBAS-6777, interleaving

by ips

Updating it so it's only a property on XA Datasource managed objects makes sense to me. I've updated the jboss-as-5 plugin to only include the prop in the XA Datasource ResourceType. I also removed the 'track-connection-by-tx' prop from the same ResourceType. However, the property is still coming back with a null value every time I load the component, even after I've updated its value to true or false. The property also still has no view uses. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238348#4238348 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238348

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: EJB 2.1 Beans in jbpm 4?

by kukeltje

And what about this View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238341#4238341 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238341

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Management Features on JBoss] - JBAS-6777, interleaving

by scott.stark＠jboss.org

Although there was a problem with the interleaving property not being properly populated in terms of its managed property value, the current issue is that this is not an independent property. It can only be set to true for XA transaction type of factories. I don't know why this property shows up at a base piece of metadata rather than the XA capable subtypes. To properly resolved JBAS-6777 this needs to happen. Is there a reason why this should not be done? Similarly, the deprecated track-connection-by-tx also needs to be moved (or dropped) as it just delegates to the interleaving property. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238330#4238330 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238330

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: MC tools

by flavia.rainone＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : I don't know the name of the pattern, but it's trivial to do it. ;-) | Instead of changing the classes, you can write proper adapters / delegates. I have started implementing this and it really looks much better. :-) The first version of these classes, implementing only the metadata to metadata conversion, is committed to svn. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238326#4238326 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238326

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Undeployment in JBosss Deployer

by jbarrez

Bernd - Are the code changes related to the deployer only? Tom intends to move the deployer to 'incubation' anyway (ie unsupported for customers) so if there are no code changes I dont see any objections - I believe the engine already suspends when an undeployment happens, so the JBoss deployer is out of sync there and should have the same logic ... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238318#4238318 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238318

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: EJB 2.1 Beans in jbpm 4?

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

command functionality like you describe will always be available. but not yet exposed as supported. consider direct command access as still being in incubation. optimisation of 2 separate methods is an optimisation. create a jira and assign it to 4.1 or 4.x View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238303#4238303 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238303

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Where should unit tests for deployers-spi go?

by jaikiran

"alesj" wrote : | I'll go ahead and fix this. | Check later if it still suites you. Sure, will take a look tomorrow. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238301#4238301 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238301

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Http Gateway - requirements please...

by tfennelly

OK... so I think we are in agreement then that EBWS in it's current form would need to change in order to provide a common basis for these http related features? I thought Kev was suggesting otherwise. Re using mapped Vs filtered "suplemental" web.xml data (for want of a better term), how about we identify: 1. What we think would need to be validated? 2. Where the possible sources of conflict would be if we didn't validate (which nobody is proposing)? Obviously they both go hand in hand :) I think the same level of validation can be achieved with either approach. With either approach you can restrict the user defined config to containing specific values, after that (for me) it's just about the format and I think keeping it in line with the web.xml makes sense from a user perspective (they know web.xml) and removes the need to perform a mapping (because it's already in the target format). What we differ on perhaps is the strictness of the validation. Kev and Dave prefer the "we only allow values X, Y and Z and we block everything else" approach, where as Danny and I seem to prefer the "we don't allow A, B, or C but do allow everything else" approach (if that makes sense :) ). View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238298#4238298 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238298

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Http Gateway - requirements please...

by tfennelly

"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "mark.little(a)jboss.com" wrote : Can we please have this in 4.7 then? We really need it for SOA-P 5. | It is definitely scheduled for SOA 5, which means 4.7 if not 4.6. I haven't moved the issue yet but will now do so. | | Kev Actually I moved this already guys to 4.x. There didn't seem to be a 4.7. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238297#4238297 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238297

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Http Gateway - requirements please...

by dward

"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : Kev, please lets not say "it is the preferred method" just yet!! | Okay, it is my preferred method :) | Kev Just to throw in my opinion, it's my preferred method too... "Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : | "tfennelly" wrote : At the moment, I don't agree with your analysis for a number of reasons. As far as I see it, we can easily control what we merge from the user defined web.xml into the generated web.xml, so having control is not really an issue IMO. | Really? How do you propose to validate everything they have added and make sure that it does not interfere with what we configure? It is much easier for us to use a configuration which we control to generate a valid deployment. | Kev Even though part of me wants to side with Tom and Daniel on this (so as to allow maximum flexibility to the user), I think we would be opening up a big can of worms. I don't think we want to - or even should - support everything you can put into a web.xml. We're not trying to be an entire "Servlet [Container] Gateway" here, just an HTTP Gateway. David View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238272#4238272 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4238272

16 years, 9 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 June 2009