torsdagen den 14 november 2002 kl 19.43 skrev marc fleury:
Plus the name sucks. Let's stir clear of 'cute names', PooledInvoker
clearly describes what it is.
amrc f
Isn't 'amrc' a cute name :)
/L
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
Bugs item #568037, was opened at 2002-06-12 14:32
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=568037group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 7
Submitted By: Michael Christen (tgdchmi2)
Dmitri Colebatch wrote:
Thats not non-repudiation (or at least my understanding of it).
Non-repudiation also provides for company B knowing that company A received
it so that if company B doesn't fill the PO company A can say I know you
received it.
Yes.
I suggest any interested in
Bugs item #633392, was opened at 2002-11-04 18:57
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=633392group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Simo Arajarvi (simo22)
Assigned to:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:jboss-development-admin;lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
scenario. The
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this
become a requirement for the other invokers??
I completely disagree. There is no reason server to client
communication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
invoker. It is a nice feature
Could a InvocationResponse object be used instead? Or, if you had detyped
invocations, couldn't you just pass a callback object along with
the request
via a client-side interceptor? Just curious...why do you need
bi-directional invocations? Acknowledgements? Callbacks? Is David using
Please, share the vision.
I would like to contribute here but don't know where to start
as it seems
everything might be changing.
I second that.
Kev
Kevin Conner
Orchard Information Systems Limited
Newcastle Technopole, Kings Manor
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 6PA. United Kingdom
Hi,
I am using JBoss with Tomcat integrated (JBoss-2.4.9_Tomcat-3.2.3).
I try to use the Tomcat's JDBC realm authentication method, and I have
configured the Tomcat users roles tomcat/conf/tomcat-users.xml) and
modified correspondant lines in my application's WEB-INF/web.xml file.
If I run a
The point i was making is that it's easier to the original e-mail than it is
to store the original encripted https post.
Regards,
Hiram
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:jboss-development-admin;lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Scott
M Stark
Sent: Friday, November
Could a InvocationResponse object be used instead? Or, if you
had detyped
invocations, couldn't you just pass a callback object along with
the request
via a client-side interceptor? Just curious...why do you need
bi-directional invocations? Acknowledgements? Callbacks? Is
David
- Thread pooling (same as the PooledInvoker).
When I looked at code it looked like there still was a thread
being spawned
for each invocation. Sure, when you hand off the message, there is a pool
there, but there seemed to be a thread spawn before this. This
needs to be
avoided.
The one-test target does not work for IIOP tests, which require
IIOP-related arguments to be passed to the JVM.
To run IIOP tests, use the iiop-test target (runs all IIOP tests in a
given directory) or the tests-iiop-stress target (runs all IIOP tests):
testsuite/build.sh -Dtest=helloiiop
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:jboss-development-admin;lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new PooledInvoker: speeds up invocations
- Thread pooling (same
Bugs item #638991, was opened at 2002-11-15 08:38
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=638991group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Scott M Stark (starksm)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #633392, was opened at 2002-11-04 09:57
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=633392group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Simo Arajarvi (simo22)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #638994, was opened at 2002-11-15 11:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=638994group_id=22866
Category: JBossSOAP
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: James Ogura (jogura)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #638991, was opened at 2002-11-15 17:38
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=638991group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Scott M Stark (starksm)
Assigned to: Sacha
We don't support anything but our security manager so write your own tomcat
integration if you want to use tomcat's security.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: Ekaterina Makarova [EMAIL
A LoginModule is all you need. The KeyStore should be coming from the
org.jboss.security.SecurityDomain the login module configuration belongs
to. Right now this is not passed in so I'll add it to the AbstractServerLoginModule
layer. In the interim get the SecurityDomain interface from JNDI. If
Bugs item #639005, was opened at 2002-11-15 17:14
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=639005group_id=22866
Category: JBossMQ
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Eric Molitor (molitor)
Assigned to:
Thanks Scott
I'm not sure I completely understand how all the parts in JBossSX
interact yet (I'm RE-reading the chapter in the Admin-devel guide
AGAIN, only slower and annunciating every syllable this time :-), but
in the mean time I'll begin writing the login module.
So should the
that is the idea behind the new online development. We want to put a
blog by dain on cmp. Every 2 weeks he updates it and you know exactly
where we are at, the development needed and you get a day to day feel
for the development. We will put proper nntp integration.
marc f
-Original
Number of tests run: 1028
Successful tests: 1014
Errors:11
Failures: 3
[time of test: 2002-11-15.18-24 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1_05]
[java.vendor: Sun Microsystems
I'm working on the feature list right now (at least the first pass). It
should be available later next week.
After that I'll put together a description of the design as I currently
understand it (you never know what doesn't work until you get to the code).
-dain
marc fleury wrote:
that is
Yes, the domain property of the JaasSecurityDomain JMX ObjectName is the
name of the security domain that correlates with the JAAS login module configuration
and a corresponding example would be:
policy
application-policy name = RMI+SSL
authentication
login-module code =
Actually, that the domain property matches the security domain name is just a
convention.
The true specification of the domain name is the argument passed to the
JaasSecurityDomain
constructor:
mbean code=org.jboss.security.plugins.JaasSecurityDomain
AAAH! the pieces are beginning to fall into place
Thanks
-jason
On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 12:12 PM, Scott M Stark wrote:
Yes, the domain property of the JaasSecurityDomain JMX ObjectName is
the
name of the security domain that correlates with the JAAS login module
configuration
and
AuthentiCom Mail Server at email.authentidate.de.
The original message was received at Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:50:30 +0100 (CET) from
medusa.wisnet.de [213.61.157.73]
The server has tried to deliver the Message 10 times without success
The Mail Server wasn't able to deliver your message to the
Number of tests run: 995
Successful tests: 987
Errors:8
Failures: 0
[time of test: 2002-11-15.11-56 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1]
[java.vendor: Apple Computer, Inc.]
Bugs item #639102, was opened at 2002-11-15 13:04
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=639102group_id=22866
Category: JBossTX
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Don Lind (dlind)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #638724, was opened at 2002-11-14 14:59
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=638724group_id=22866
Category: JBossSX
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Randy Shoup (rshoup)
Assigned to:
Title: ¡Felicidades!
Felicidades! Usted y su familia
ganaron las vacaciones celebrando los 100 Aos de
Magia. Por favor contactenos a nuestras oficinas. Desde Puerto Rico o los
Estados Unidos, llame GRATIS al 1(866) 371-7144. Desde otros paises, llame
al
001-305-371-7144 de Lunes
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this
become a requirement for the other invokers??
I completely disagree. There is no reason server to client
communication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
I might have said this
Perhaps.. I've not double checked the pool code. The first time an
invocation comes though shure, but the second time, the pooled
thread should
get reused.
Please make sure. It didn't read that way when I looked at it last.
I'll double check.
Yep.. But this is good, if
Bugs item #638991, was opened at 2002-11-15 08:38
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=638991group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.2
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Scott M Stark (starksm)
Assigned to: Scott M
Bugs item #633392, was opened at 2002-11-04 09:57
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=633392group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Simo Arajarvi (simo22)
Assigned
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote: Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this become a requirement for the other invokers??I completely disagree. There is no reason server to clientcommunication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
Bugs item #637269, was opened at 2002-11-12 18:04
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=637269group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Closed
Resolution: Invalid
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Robert de Lorimier (rodelor)
Assigned to:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Anyways. JMS need bi-directional invocations (BADLY). Should this
become a requirement for the other invokers??
I completely disagree. There is no reason server to client
communication has to go over the back channel of a client to server
I might
Peter.. why doesn't this have a JMS interface into it?? any ideas. 1600
message/second is GREAT number!
Regards,
HIram
On 14 Nov, Bill Burke wrote:
Wow Peter! This is exactly what I was thinking of. Any JMX
guys have any
ideas how we could integrate this?
The server is already
41 matches
Mail list logo
