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

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: ClassPool for JBoss Reflection

by flavia.rainone＠jboss.com

"kabir.khan(a)jboss.com" wrote : 1) The comment means that we should use the classloader associated with the pool rather than the default thread context classloader that would get passed in when somebody calls ClassPool.toClass(). Actually, my question was about the call to the lockInCache call... why would you put something in the cache if it is already there? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241275#4241275 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241275

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: GetOutcomes returns additional transition

by kukeltje

What I expect - If there is only one transition, it is allowed to have no name. Completed can be returned as the *only* possible outcome then. - If there are more transitions, all with names, completed is not there (why should it? To give the user the explicit option to choose the 'default' transition which he probably does not know which one it is?) - Ending a task with 'null' or nothing makes it take the default transition - If there is more then one transition, none are allowed to have no name (throw an error when parsing) Even better (but that was in the previous discussion) I think a name on a transition should be required. So this ' completed' is not needed then and passing (null) or () makes it take the default transition. Much more clear to me. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241243#4241243 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241243

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Why is kernel looking for default constructor?

by adrian＠jboss.org

"richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : Could somebody confirm my feelings? What do feelings have to do with it? Instead of using your feelings why don't you try looking at the log (including turning up the relevant categories to TRACE level) so you can see what it is actually doing? I think you'll find that a much happier approach. :-) Anyway, compare the name= in the exception message | 15:59:53,815 ERROR [AbstractKernelController] Error installing to Instantiated: | name=WSDeploymentAspectsDeployer state=Described | to that in the xml | <bean name="WSContainerMetaDataDeployer" | class="org.jboss.wsf.container.jboss50.deployer.WSDeploymentAspectDeployer"> | Assuming that doesn't improve your feelings, post some more relevant information in the user forum. This is not the place to ask for help. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241238#4241238 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241238

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Why is kernel looking for default constructor?

by jaikiran

anonymous wrote : 15:59:53,815 ERROR [AbstractKernelController] Error installing to Instantiated: name=WSDeploymentAspectsDeployer state=Described | Hehe, it's complaining about some other deployer and not the one which you posted (WSContainerMetaDataDeployer): <bean name="WSContainerMetaDataDeployer" class="org.jboss.wsf.container.jboss50.deployer.WSDeploymentAspectDeployer"> | <constructor> | <parameter class="org.jboss.wsf.spi.deployment.DeploymentAspect"> | <inject bean="WSContainerMetaDataDeploymentAspect"/> | </parameter> | </constructor> | </bean> | View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241237#4241237 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241237

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Why is kernel looking for default constructor?

by jaikiran

I don't really see anything obviously wrong with your configuration. And the deployers are not special MC POJOs. They have the same characteristics as the normal MC beans. The only distinguishing factor, is that they get added to the DeployersImpl through a callback. Are you sure, that the MC is picking up this exact file? Or is it picking up some other -jboss-beans.xml which does not configure the "constructor" in the xml. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241236#4241236 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241236

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Why is kernel looking for default constructor?

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

If there's just the one constructor, maybe try leaving off the class="" and see if that fixes the problem? I don't see any reason why that wouldn't work... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241233#4241233 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241233

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: GetOutcomes returns additional transition

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

"completed" is always a valid outcome In TaskImpl: public void complete() { | complete(Task.STATE_COMPLETED); | } | this also fits with the logic that the task outcome doesn't have to match with the transition name if there is only one. if there are more transitions, then still "completed" is a valid outcome. in that case the default outgoing transition will be taken from the activity if task is completed with outcome 'completed'. so in other words, i don't yet see the unlogicality. can you elaborate more concretely what you expected different ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241230#4241230 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241230

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Why is kernel looking for default constructor?

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

I bet this will be somehow related to contextual injection, i.e. kernel detects deployer but instead of looking for nested constructor element it tries to lookup public default deployer constructor. It seems that deployers are REALLY special POJOs inside MC :( Could somebody confirm my feelings? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241229#4241229 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241229

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossXB] - Re: JBossXB does not assign schema defined attribute default

by alex.loubyansky＠jboss.com

The SchemaBinding is generated from the class, yes. But the attribute value should come from the schema during parsing of the XML. I am going to add a testcase for that (tomorrow probably). View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241228#4241228 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241228

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: Filtering non-EJB3 deployments in the EJB3 deployer

by jaikiran

"wolfc" wrote : Which means that this piece of logic should be on one common ground. Maybe an EJB3DeployerHelper? Yep, we can have it in our ejb3-deployers component. I'll create a task for this. anonymous wrote : This is fixed as https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-7070 Alexey, are you planning to do it in AS trunk too? If not, i'll update it in trunk. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4241223#4241223 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4241223

16 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

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