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

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - VFS3 - missing features and other issues

by alesj

To follow up today's VFS3 discussion, I'm opening a forum thread where we should discuss missing features and any other issues. The current VFS3 svn can be found here: - http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/vfs/branches/dml-zip-rework/ My initial port of CL to VFS3 shows missing API: * http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/vfs/trunk/src/main/java/o... * http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/vfs/trunk/src/main/java/o... The good thing is the we were pretty strict with VFS wrt API, hence the only user API was held in - http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/vfs/trunk/src/main/java/o... so, it currently looks like once we get those two impled we should be fine. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245113#4245113 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245113

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Are we supporting META-INF/jbm-jms.xml?

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

I have changed mdb-example.ear, and added jbm-jms.xml under META-INF. Trying to replicate a case where the user is deploying the destination with the package. But I couldn' t make it to work. and I thought this was supposed to work already. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245104#4245104 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245104

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Are we supporting META-INF/jbm-jms.xml?

by timfox

I don't understand the question, can you pose it again? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245100#4245100 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245100

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by tfennelly

OK :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245091#4245091 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245091

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Are we supporting META-INF/jbm-jms.xml?

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

I thought this was supposed to work already. I have locally changed the MDB example, to deploy jbm-jms.xml as part of META-INF, and it wasn't actually deployed (not on the right order at least), making the MDB deployment to throw a Destination not exists. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245090#4245090 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245090

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"tfennelly" wrote : 1. Allowing the context to be the bus specific part, defined on the bus (in the provider section) and allowing it to be whatever the user decides i.e. no artifical constraints/prefixes such as "http" etc. No, please keep the context as it is for now i.e. the name of the war file matching the esb deployment. "tfennelly" wrote : 2. Allowing the urlPattern to be a listener specific "filter" that filters certain requests off the bus (context) referenced by the listener's busrefid. Again, this can be whatever the user decides. We should certainly allow the user to specify the urlPattern provided that we make sure that there are no conflicts. Adding a prefix to the url is a simple and straight forward way to make sure that these never conflict with the EBWS. "tfennelly" wrote : In the case of EBWS, there wouldn't be an explicit bus or listener definition, so it's context and urlPattern could be something implied from the service definition e.g. context as "ebws" and listener urlPattern as "${service.category}/${service.name}" etc ? This is already how it works for EBWS, albeit without any prefix. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245069#4245069 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245069

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"dward" wrote : I don't see why having multiple services in the same category would cause a problem. Because the lifecycle of the generated war is tied to the lifecycle of the esb defining the gateways. They are not independent. "dward" wrote : Concerning "other war deployments" Agreed. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245066#4245066 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245066

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: PagingManager methods

by clebert.suconic＠jboss.com

The two places calling page, don't have any direct relationship to an Address. Because of that, each place would be doing exactly what is encapsulated withing PagingManager, and I didn' t remove it because of that. As the hashMap operation is needed, I would just keep it properly encpasulated in PagingManager, unless we find a way to proper cache the PagingStore. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245059#4245059 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245059

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by tfennelly

What makes sense to me is something like the following... 1. Allowing the context to be the bus specific part, defined on the bus (in the provider section) and allowing it to be whatever the user decides i.e. no artifical constraints/prefixes such as "http" etc. 2. Allowing the urlPattern to be a listener specific "filter" that filters certain requests off the bus (context) referenced by the listener's busrefid. Again, this can be whatever the user decides. In the case of EBWS, there wouldn't be an explicit bus or listener definition, so it's context and urlPattern could be something implied from the service definition e.g. context as "ebws" and listener urlPattern as "${service.category}/${service.name}" etc ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245056#4245056 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245056

16 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by dward

"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "dward" wrote : First, why can't ${service.category} be the context? | This is done per esb deployment so there could easily be conflicts with other esb deployments (services in same category) or even other war deployments. I don't see why having multiple services in the same category would cause a problem. Brainstorm: - new ${service.category} + new ${service.name} = deploy a new war with ${service.category} as the context, which contains a servlet which dynamically routes the request to the appropriate ESB service (via ServiceInvoker) based on parsing the uri path for ${service.name}. - existing ${service.category} + new ${service.name} = no deployment change necessary because the servlet will dynamically route based on the new ${service.name} - existing ${service.category} + remove ${service.name} = no deployment change necessary, *unless* there are no more ${service.name}'s associated with that ${service.category}, at which point the context (webapp) is undeployed. Concerning "other war deployments", this will always be an issue no matter what we do. Even if we come up with a single context name that sounds very ESB-specific, there's still the chance someone could have named their war that, too. We just have to have a warning in the documentation about this. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4245055#4245055 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4245055

16 years, 8 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 July 2009