The reply to all "feature"  is still biting...

Thanks!

Will this work?  (first conceptually, then how much change would it take)

I take it there are several queues for each persistence manager.

A queue has a dependency (mbean ref) to a persistence manager.  If the
queue gets deployed first, it waits till the persistence manager has had
start() called on it.

The persistence manager does whatever queue- independent startup stuff it
needs to do in init() and start()

After the persistence manager starts, (or anytime later if a queue happens
to get started second), the queue gets init and start called: in one of
these it asks the persistence manager to give it back its persistent
messages.  Since it depends on the mbean-ref to the persistence manager,
the persistence manager will be there.

The main difference between this and what happens now is that the queues
are restored one at a time rather than all at once.

Is there some structural reason all the queues need to be restored at once?
 To my uneducated mind I would think there might be some advantages to
being able to restore them one at a time independently.

Many thanks for the example

david jencks


On 2001.10.04 13:43:19 -0400 Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 
> The reason the David M. did that is due to the way that JBossMQ starts up
> 
> it's Queues...  The startup sequence is something along the lines of:
> 
> 1. MQ Persistence Manager inits
> 2. Queue inits = registers itself with the Persistence Manager
> 3. MQ Persistence Manager starts() = restores persitence messages to the 
> registered queues.
> 4. Queues starts() = queues bind to JNDI.
> 
> Maybe this startup sequence should not be used.  But the thing we need is
> a 
> signal to the Persistence Manager to restore messages to all the queues
> that 
> have registered.
> 
> >From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: jboss-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [JBoss-dev] Why do init, start, etc have to be done per
> deployment 
> >unit? (rh/3.0)
> >Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:31:53 -0400
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >When Marc put in the new classloading stuff for 3.0, he had each mbean
> >being configured, inited, and started individually (although in the
> order
> >of the *service.xml file).
> >
> >David Maplesden added some package depending on mbean dependency control
> >and changed the config/init/start to do each step to the entire
> deployment
> >unit (as it is in 2.4).
> >
> >I am in the process of making the dependencies operate on an mbean to
> mbean
> >level by means of mbean references and would like to change this process
> >back to config/init/start mbean by mbean.
> >
> >Given mbean to mbean dependencies, will this cause any problems?  Please
> >give a specific example. I didn't catch David M's example when he made
> the
> >first change.
> >
> >
> >Heres an example of the mbean references/ dependencies at work:
> >
> >
> >   <mbean code="org.jboss.test.jmx.mbeanconfigure.TestMBeanA"
> >      name="test:name=TestMBeanA">
> >     <mbean-ref 
> >name="Mbeanb">test:name=TestMBeanB</mbean-ref><!--ObjectName
> >valued attribute get/setMbeanb-->
> >     <mbean-ref-list name="Mbeans"> <!--list valued attribute, elements
> are
> >ObjectNames-->
> >       
> ><mbean-ref-list-element>test:name=TestMBeanB</mbean-ref-list-element>
> >       
> 
>><mbean-ref-list-element>JBOSS-SYSTEM:service=TransactionManager</mbean-ref-list-element>
> >     </mbean-ref-list>
> >   </mbean>
> >
> ><!--TestMBeanA will be suspended waiting for TestMBeanB when it is first
> >deployed -->
> >
> >   <mbean code="org.jboss.test.jmx.mbeanconfigure.TestMBeanB"
> >      name="test:name=TestMBeanB">
> >     <mbean-ref name="Mbeana">test:name=TestMBeanA</mbean-ref>
> >   </mbean>
> >
> ><!-- TestMBeanB will find TestMBeanA, so it can deploy completely.  Once
> it
> >is started, its dependencies are checked, allowing (if the tm is
> present!)
> >TestMBeanA to finish deploying -->
> >
> >Suggestions for better element names will be appreciated.
> >
> >I am planning to use these two new elements in the mbean element because
> >they have such different semantics than the existing attribute element.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >David Jencks
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Jboss-development mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development

Reply via email to