12:12 p.m.
There was a problem with the minimal config not booting. To fix that:
1) I've removed the jndi service from the jboss-minimal.xml and copied the
deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml instead.
2) God rid of the conf/xmdesc/Naming* descriptors, as I think those are not used now, but
re-instanted the Log4jService-xmbean.xml one
3) Used the same bootstrap.xml that we have in 'default' that brings in the
bindinds.xml,
too, due to the bindind service used by naming-jboss-beans.xml
4) Added minimal/lib/jboss-bindingservice.jar
The question is if we want to keep the binding service in the minimal config, or use a
simplified version of the deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml with a subset of the beans:
LookupPool
LocalNamingBean
RemoteNamingBean
JndiViewBean
NamingService
The more general question is if we want to alter the minimal config in some manner:
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-6103
Scott Stark wrote:
This is all working and I have committed the changes. Note that I
made a
https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/branches/JBAS-4814/ branch as
revision 79561 in case this needs to be rolled back for GA so the
changes can be moved into that branch. Now that its committed I'll do
some more testing on another box to make sure all of the changes are in.
Scott Stark wrote:
> The smoke-tests are clean, but there are a few naming test failures I
> should fix as well to validate the naming-jboss-beans.xml changes
> before committing.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
jboss-development mailing list
jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
12:20 p.m.
I don't think we want the bindings service in minimal. Do we still need
the bindings.xml in bootstrap?
P.S. I forgot about the minimal config. Should that be part of the
smoke-tests?
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
There was a problem with the minimal config not booting. To fix
that:
1) I've removed the jndi service from the jboss-minimal.xml and copied
the deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml instead.
2) God rid of the conf/xmdesc/Naming* descriptors, as I think those
are not used now, but re-instanted the Log4jService-xmbean.xml one
3) Used the same bootstrap.xml that we have in 'default' that brings
in the bindinds.xml, too, due to the bindind service used by
naming-jboss-beans.xml
4) Added minimal/lib/jboss-bindingservice.jar
The question is if we want to keep the binding service in the minimal
config, or use a simplified version of the
deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml with a subset of the beans:
LookupPool
LocalNamingBean
RemoteNamingBean
JndiViewBean
NamingService
The more general question is if we want to alter the minimal config in
some manner:
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-6103
12:22 p.m.
It's only needed because the naming-jboss-beans.xml descriptor references it, I
think.
If we simplify the descriptor, we should be able to do without it.
Scott Stark wrote:
I don't think we want the bindings service in minimal. Do we
still need
the bindings.xml in bootstrap?
P.S. I forgot about the minimal config. Should that be part of the
smoke-tests?
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
> There was a problem with the minimal config not booting. To fix that:
>
> 1) I've removed the jndi service from the jboss-minimal.xml and copied
> the deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml instead.
>
> 2) God rid of the conf/xmdesc/Naming* descriptors, as I think those
> are not used now, but re-instanted the Log4jService-xmbean.xml one
>
> 3) Used the same bootstrap.xml that we have in 'default' that brings
> in the bindinds.xml, too, due to the bindind service used by
> naming-jboss-beans.xml
>
> 4) Added minimal/lib/jboss-bindingservice.jar
>
> The question is if we want to keep the binding service in the minimal
> config, or use a simplified version of the
> deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml with a subset of the beans:
>
> LookupPool
> LocalNamingBean
> RemoteNamingBean
> JndiViewBean
> NamingService
>
> The more general question is if we want to alter the minimal config in
> some manner:
>
> https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-6103
>
_______________________________________________
jboss-development mailing list
jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
12:28 p.m.
You mean bootstrap.xml references it. I assume this was because of the
other services in conf/jboss-service.xml using the bindings. If no
deployers due, this should be moved to deploy/bindings-jboss-beans.xml.
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
It's only needed because the naming-jboss-beans.xml descriptor
references it, I think.
If we simplify the descriptor, we should be able to do without it.
Scott Stark wrote:
> I don't think we want the bindings service in minimal. Do we still
> need the bindings.xml in bootstrap?
>
> P.S. I forgot about the minimal config. Should that be part of the
> smoke-tests?
>
12:37 p.m.
No I mean deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml referencing the ServiceBindingManager:
(the double "port" reference is probably a mistake, as well)
<property name="port">1099</property>
<property name="port">
<value-factory bean="ServiceBindingManager"
method="getIntBinding">
<parameter>jboss:service=Naming</parameter>
<parameter>Port</parameter>
</value-factory>
</property>
<!-- The bootstrap JNP server bind address. This also sets the default
RMI service bind address. Empty == all addresses
-->
<property
name="bindAddress">${jboss.bind.address:localhost}</property>
<!-- The port of the RMI naming service, 0 == anonymous -->
<property name="rmiPort">
<value-factory bean="ServiceBindingManager"
method="getIntBinding">
<parameter>jboss:service=Naming</parameter>
<parameter>RmiPort</parameter>
</value-factory>
</property>
Ok, so I can create a simplified version of this for the minimal config. Just tested it
locally and it boots fine.
Scott Stark wrote:
You mean bootstrap.xml references it. I assume this was because of
the
other services in conf/jboss-service.xml using the bindings. If no
deployers due, this should be moved to deploy/bindings-jboss-beans.xml.
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
> It's only needed because the naming-jboss-beans.xml descriptor
> references it, I think.
>
> If we simplify the descriptor, we should be able to do without it.
>
> Scott Stark wrote:
>> I don't think we want the bindings service in minimal. Do we still
>> need the bindings.xml in bootstrap?
>>
>> P.S. I forgot about the minimal config. Should that be part of the
>> smoke-tests?
>>
_______________________________________________
jboss-development mailing list
jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
12:45 p.m.
Ok, right. We also want to simplify the bootstrap.xml to remove the
bindings.xml if we can. I tried in in default and it fails because the
WarDeployer references the ServiceBindingManager, but probably can be
updated to move that into the jbossweb.sar. That's a separate
simplification at this point.
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
No I mean deploy/naming-jboss-beans.xml referencing the
ServiceBindingManager:
(the double "port" reference is probably a mistake, as well)
<property name="port">1099</property>
<property name="port">
<value-factory bean="ServiceBindingManager"
method="getIntBinding">
<parameter>jboss:service=Naming</parameter>
<parameter>Port</parameter>
</value-factory>
</property>
<!-- The bootstrap JNP server bind address. This also sets the
default
RMI service bind address. Empty == all addresses
-->
<property
name="bindAddress">${jboss.bind.address:localhost}</property>
<!-- The port of the RMI naming service, 0 == anonymous -->
<property name="rmiPort">
<value-factory bean="ServiceBindingManager"
method="getIntBinding">
<parameter>jboss:service=Naming</parameter>
<parameter>RmiPort</parameter>
</value-factory>
</property>
Ok, so I can create a simplified version of this for the minimal
config. Just tested it locally and it boots fine.
5685
days inactive
5691
days old
jboss-development@lists.jboss.org
10 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Dimitris Andreadis -
Scott Stark