FW: List maintainer?
by Victor Schrader
-----Original Message-----
From: Admin [mailto:admin@schrader.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:55 PM
To: 'jboss-user(a)lists.jboss.org'
Subject: List maintainer?
Pardon me for puting this on the list, but whether I get digest messages or
not, I still get 2 messages for every 1 message? I recently changed email
addresses and changed to digest mode, in both cases I still get double the
messages sometimes triple. Thanks.
Vic Schrader
Direct 858-538-1650
Fax 858-578-8879
19 years, 7 months
[JNDI/Naming/Network] - newbie please help: using the right name?
by bezdomny
This is a really dumb question, but here goes: I'm trying to use javamail and I have the following config:
Here is the server output when jboss starts up:
[org.jboss.mail.MailService] Mail Service bound to java:/AppMail
2006-10-04 12:46:46,065 DEBUG [org.jboss.mail.MailService] Started jboss:service=Mail
java:/AppMail
<!-- Change to your mail server prototocol -->
<!-- Change to the user who will receive mail -->
<!-- Change to the mail server -->
<!-- Change to the mail server -->
Now if you notice I've called the jndi name java:/AppMail. How do I refer to this in the code? I always get NameNotFoundException. Here is my code:
Context ctx = null;
Session mailSession = null;
try {
ctx = (Context) new InitialContext().lookup("java:comp/env");
Object objref = ctx.lookup("java:/AppMail");
mailSession = (Session) PortableRemoteObject.narrow(objref, Session.class);
} catch (NamingException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace( }
Am I refering to jndi name in the proper way?
Thanks,
B
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3976144#3976144
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3976144
19 years, 7 months
[JBoss Seam] - Roles bug?
by zzzz8
I recently upgraded my Seam libraries from 1.0.1 GA to the 9/28/2006 build. I just noticed that a session bean that I've annotated with Roles doesn't seem to work any more - it worked with 1.0.1 GA. When I mean work, I mean my JSF markup that's referencing one of the roles somehow always defaults to referencing the default component.
To make this a little clearer (since I probably didn't explain myself clearly above), I have a session bean like this:
@Name("testDefault")
| @Roles( { @Role(name = "testAlt1"), @Role(name = "testAlt2")})
| @Stateful
| public class TestBean implements TestLocal {
| private int testProp;
|
| public void setTestProp(int inputTestProp) {
| testProp = inputTestProp;
| }
|
| public getTestProp() {
| return testProp;
| }
| }
The testProp value is set in my components.xml file.
When I reference testAlt1 in my JSF markup like this:
#{testAlt1.testProp}
It actually retrieves the testProp value associated with the testDefault component rather than the testAlt1 component. On startup, all the components seem to be initialized correctly (at least the Tomcat console indicates so). Again, my hunch of a bug lies in the fact that this portion of my code has not changed since I upgraded to the Sep. 28, 2006 build from 1.0.1 GA (and it was working in 1.0.1 GA).
When I look in the stack trace (and forgive me, I'm not familiar at all with the Seam source code but I'm starting to try to look at it), I notice that when the Interceptor object's aroundInvoke is invoked (app. 15 frames down) has a Component property that actually refers to testDefault instead of testAlt1 - I was just trying to look for references to testAlt1 in the stack trace... When I look way down at where the component is initialized (I'm assuming Component.newInstance()), I see a reference to testAlt1 (at least in the name property of the Component object. Obviously, I didn't know what the heck I was doing so I'm rambling here, but I thought it might be useful. For what that's worth. :)
I looked over the latest documentation and I don't notice that @Roles has changed in use, so is this a possible bug? Thanks!
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3976139#3976139
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3976139
19 years, 7 months
