Quick question related to the remote invoker proxy binding.
Is it something new (this invoker proxy binding) in JBoss 3.2 to avoid creating a complete different container-configuration?
In JBoss 3.0.5, when bringing MQSeries as a JMS provider, I end up creating a new container-configuration (I did not want to replace the JBossMQ provider) to have MDB listening to MQSeries destinations (and add something like "<configuration-name>WSMQ Message Driven Bean</configuration-name>" in the jboss.xml of the MDB).
Am I able, in JBoss 3.2, to just configure a new invoker proxy binding instead? Meaning that the <invoker-bindings> settings in the MDB jboss.xml will overwrite the default invoker proxy of the Standard Message Driven Bean?
Thomas Cherel
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Brock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] JMS: JBoss to Weblogic messaging
This is sore point in the spec :-)
It leaves it for each JMS implementation to solve. It implements the
ConnectionConsumer and the Session. The message is passed under the
radar. In particular what happens when there is failure part way
through.
This is a problem that JCA1.5's MessageEndpoint makes simple
to solve. The ConnectionConsumer is no longer used.
Ignore DTM. The XAResource is instantiated inside JBoss
and enlisted in a JBoss Transaction. You don't need a DTM
to access a remote database.
JBoss-3.2 config
1) You need a remote provider (really an overly complicated way of
configuring jndi objects)
<mbean code="org.jboss.jms.jndi.JMSProviderLoader"
name="jboss.mq:service=RemoteJMSProviderLoader,name=JBossMQProvider">
<attribute name="ProviderName">RemoteJMSProvider</attribute>
<attribute name="ProviderURL">jnp:/remote:1099</attribute>
<attribute name="ProviderAdapterClass">
org.jboss.jms.jndi.JBossMQProvider
</attribute>
<attribute
name="QueueFactoryRef">java:/XAConnectionFactory</attribute>
<attribute
name="TopicFactoryRef">java:/XAConnectionFactory</attribute>
</mbean>
2) Then configure it on an invoker proxy binding:
<invoker-proxy-binding>
<name>remote-message-driven-bean</name>
<invoker-mbean>default</invoker-mbean>
<proxy-factory>org.jboss.ejb.plugins.jms.JMSContainerInvoker</proxy-factory>
<proxy-factory-config>
<JMSProviderAdapterJNDI>RemoteJMSProvider</JMSProviderAdapterJNDI>
<ServerSessionPoolFactoryJNDI>StdJMSPool</ServerSessionPoolFactoryJNDI>
<MaximumSize>15</MaximumSize>
<MaxMessages>1</MaxMessages>
<MDBConfig>
<ReconnectIntervalSec>10</ReconnectIntervalSec>
<DLQConfig>
<DestinationQueue>queue/DLQ</DestinationQueue>
<MaxTimesRedelivered>10</MaxTimesRedelivered>
<TimeToLive>0</TimeToLive>
</DLQConfig>
</MDBConfig>
</proxy-factory-config>
</invoker-proxy-binding>
3) Use it on an mdb (jboss.xml)
<message-driven>
<ejb-name>test/mdb</ejb-name>
<destination-jndi-name>queue/testQueue</destination-jndi-name>
<invoker-bindings>
<invoker>
<invoker-proxy-binding-name>remote-message-driven-bean</invoker-proxy-binding-name>
</invoker>
</invoker-bindings>
</message-driven>
Regards,
Adrian
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 21:03, Barlow, Dustin wrote:
> In a previous discussion we had, you mentioned the following flow of
> JMS->CMT MDB
>
> <quote>
> The order of work is roughly:
>
> 1) receive()
> 2) getSession() and enlist in tx
> 3) getMDB()
> 4) onMessage()
> 5) releaseMDB()
> 6) commitSession()
> </quote>
>
> In this case (Weblogic JMS -> JBoss CMT MDB), I was thinking that the JMS
> session would be aquired from Weblogic's JMS queue and since the session
> would need to be enlisted in the TM of JBoss that it would require DTM. But
> it seems from your reply that the session would not be a Weblogic JMS
> session, but rather a local JBoss JMS session? Or am I mixing up the JMS
> session with another type of JBoss session?
>
> Also, can you share your container setup for doing an MDB on JBoss instance
> 1 binding to a queue on JBoss instance 2? I would be interested in seeing
> how you set that up.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Dustin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Brock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:55 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] JMS: JBoss to Weblogic messaging
> >
> >
> > No, a distributed TM is only required when there are multiple
> > transaction managers.
> >
> > The JBossTM enlists the JMS's XASession/XAResource.
> > There is only one transaction manager.
> >
> > If the MDB did a remote ejb invocation then it would require a DTM.
> >
> > Of course you might want a logging TM for recovery.
> >
> > It should work with any JMS implementation. I've only tried it
> > with JBoss<->JBoss. I've heard of people doing it with Arjuna
> > and MQSeries.
> > Sonic seem to want you replace JBoss's ServerSessionPoolFactory
> > for reasons I don't understand.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adrian
> >
> > On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 18:58, Barlow, Dustin wrote:
> > > In the 3.x series, how are CMTs handled if the JBoss MDB
> > binds to a queue on
> > > a Weblogic instance? Doesn't this require distributed TM
> > which isn't
> > > currently supported in 3.x? Would this even work between
> > two JBoss 3.x
> > > instances?
> > >
> > > Dustin
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adrian Brock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:24 PM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] JMS: JBoss to Weblogic messaging
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are two types of interoperability.
> > > >
> > > > JBoss MDB can use any messaging system (it doesn't care
> > about jbossmq)
> > > >
> > > > Different JMS systems can transport each others messages
> > > > (typically by wrapping them in their own native message) -
> > > > this is obviously slower than a uniform environment.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Adrian
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 17:26, Dan Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > Curley, John wrote:
> > > > > > Hi, All:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can anyone give me feedback on performing JMS
> > messaging to/from
> > > > > > JBoss/WebLogic environments?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should there be any issues with guaranteed messaging?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In theory, there should be interoperability between the
> > > > two environments as
> > > > > > implied by the J2EE specification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really. The J2EE spec guarantees that applications will
> > > > be portable
> > > > > between environments, not that servers will be interoperable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Depending on exactly what you need to do, you can use
> > the JBoss JMS
> > > > > implementation from within weblogic, or the weblogic
> > > > implementation from
> > > > > within JBoss, by constructing your initial JNDI context
> > > > appropriately.
> > > > >
> > > > > hth,
> > > > > danch
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > JBoss-user mailing list
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > JBoss-user mailing list
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > JBoss-user mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > JBoss-user mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> JBoss-user mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
