March 2010 - jboss-user - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Re: Circular Dependencies and Semi-Resolve"

by Ales Justin

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Circular Dependencies and Semi-Resolve": http://community.jboss.org/message/530206#530206 Author : Ales Justin Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/alesj Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Does this work out-of-the-box for multiple circular depending deployments (aka OSGi bundles, which is what we're aiming for)? How are service's invalid configs reported -- A on B in ctor, and vice-versa? I guess they just don't ever get resolved -- failing at check complete? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530206#530206

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Tools] New message: "Re: hql editor porblem with @GenericGenerator"

by Vitali Yemialyanchyk

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "hql editor porblem with @GenericGenerator": http://community.jboss.org/message/530203#530203 Author : Vitali Yemialyanchyk Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/vyemialyanchyk Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I check this with latest version of JBoss Tools. Hibernate Tools HQL editor works correct with @GenericGenerator. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530203#530203

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Circular Dependencies and Semi-Resolve"

by Adrian Brock

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Circular Dependencies and Semi-Resolve": http://community.jboss.org/message/530202#530202 Author : Adrian Brock Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/adrian@jboss.org Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBKERNEL-109 I've committed a prototype for circular dependencies. This involved three main changes: 1) The ability to "semiResolve" a dependency which means that you know what you want to depend on, but it is not in the correct state yet. However, if the only thing that is stopping it moving to the correct state is a circular dependency (i.e. other things in the semi-resolved state) then it will upgraded to fully resolved. 2) Change AbstractDependencyItem to use an enum for the three different types of resolved states, resolved, semi-resolved and unresolved and track the different types in AbstractDependencyInfo for optimized processing of the different types. 3) A change in AbstractController to introduce an "uninstalling" set like the "installing" set, to avoid recursive when uninstalling contexts that have circular dependencies. Caveats: * I haven't looked at adding ON_DEMAND processing, although it should be simple to add? * The semi-resolved handling only looks at contexts in the previous state to what you require. If they are in any earlier state then they are unresovled until they progress to the previous state. This avoids having to do a complicated determination on whether there is a path to break the circular dependency, rather than just advancing all the related semi-resolved contexts to the next state. Its usage should be trivial: public MyDependencyItem extends AbstractDependencyItem { public boolean resolve(Controller) { // Determine the context we want to be semi-resolved on ControllerContext ctx = ...; if (ctx == null) return false; // Pass the handling to AbstractDependencyItem return semiResolve(ctx); } } -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530202#530202

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Re: Undemand processing is wrong"

by Adrian Brock

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Undemand processing is wrong": http://community.jboss.org/message/530201#530201 Author : Adrian Brock Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/adrian@jboss.org Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBKERNEL-108 -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530201#530201

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[jBPM] New message: "Re: JBPM and WSDL"

by M Hakimi

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "JBPM and WSDL": http://community.jboss.org/message/530200#530200 Author : M Hakimi Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/maro1114 Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you very much for clearification. Best regards M. -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530200#530200

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Undemand processing is wrong"

by Adrian Brock

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Undemand processing is wrong": http://community.jboss.org/message/530199#530199 Author : Adrian Brock Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/adrian@jboss.org Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- One of the tests in the JMX testsuite actually shows it was wrong, but it is asserting the wrong thing. :-) Consider the following test: <mbean name="A" mode="ON_DEMAND"/> <mbean name="B"> <depends>A</depends> </mbean> As per the original JMX rules, that will set up two dependencies B->A at CREATE B->A at START Now assume everything is at INSTALLED. If I do B.stop() what is happening now is the uninstall of undemanded contexts will say that A is no longer required. It correctly works out that A is still required for the CREATE dependency, and that it is no longer required for the START dependency. So what would you expect it to do? 1) Move A back to DESCRIBE, even B needs it for the CREATE dependency 2) Move A back to CREATE which is what B demands 3) Don't do anything with A The current answer is (1), which is obviously wrong. When A goes back to DESCRIBE, then B will also be destroyed (because of the dependency at CREATE) which is not what I asked for. I've got a fix that makes it do (3). i.e. while something still wants an ON_DEMAND service, it will stay in the fully INSTALLED state (or its current state if somebody moved it). This makes sense to me, since enabling an on demand service doesn't move it to an incompletely deployed state, so why should undemanding do that? I don't actually like this processing. Like I said when I originally did the ON_DEMAND processing, you don't want to bounce your ON_DEMAND webserver just because you are redeploying your only web-app. ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530199#530199

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Tools Development] New message: "Re: Content Assist in attributes which should be filled with id's"

by Max Andersen

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Content Assist in attributes which should be filled with id's": http://community.jboss.org/message/530197#530197 Author : Max Andersen Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/max.andersen@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- yeah im also looking for something more concrete since "facelets templating" is probably what we got the *most* support for so wondering what we are missing ? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530197#530197

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Re: Security problems with org.jboss.test:jboss-test 1.1.5.GA"

by Adrian Brock

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Security problems with org.jboss.test:jboss-test 1.1.5.GA": http://community.jboss.org/message/530194#530194 Author : Adrian Brock Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/adrian@jboss.org Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Looks like a bug to me, but I don't see any recent changes in the code that would cause the problem? The SecurityManager shouldn't be installed until it runs AbstractTestDelegate.setUp() The error above is happening in the constructor of the delegate. Its only after that happens that you can do: delegate.enableSecurity = true; Most likely, there is a security manager still around from a previous test? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530194#530194

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Microcontainer Development] New message: "Re: Security problems with org.jboss.test:jboss-test 1.1.5.GA"

by ANIL SALDHANA

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Security problems with org.jboss.test:jboss-test 1.1.5.GA": http://community.jboss.org/message/530193#530193 Author : ANIL SALDHANA Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/anil.saldhana@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- If the SM disable for the test class is simpler, go for it. Surprisingly, Adrian has not documented his test class. He usually is very good at it. Ha Ha!! Adding a Privileged Block does not mean you are bypassing security (in all cases). -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530193#530193

16 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss Tools Development] New message: "Re: Content Assist in attributes which should be filled with id's"

by Alexey Kazakov

User development, A new message was posted in the thread "Content Assist in attributes which should be filled with id's": http://community.jboss.org/message/530192#530192 Author : Alexey Kazakov Email : akazakov(a)exadel.com Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/akazakov Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- Facelets templating? What kind of feature do you mean here? We already have some support of it in VPE and code completion. For example <ui:composition template="|" > suggests available pages. What else could be useful? WDYT? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/530192#530192

16 years, 1 month

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-user March 2010