Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-06 Thread Ceki Gulcu
Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 
> Will SLF4J's Logger get vararg methods soon?  Please?

Hi Jason,

This is a different question than whether to declare loggers as
instance or static variables.

To answer your question, Joern Huxhorn has already submitted a patch
adding vargargs support. See
http://www.slf4j.org/pipermail/user/2008-April/000520.html

I'd like to mention two points.

1) slf4j already supports 1 and 2 arguments, meaning that the varagrs
support would only be helpful for 3 or more arguments.

2) varargs support implies requiring JDK 1.5 by SLF4J. I fear that the
vararg version of SLF4J may conflict with previous versions. For
example, if Geronimo exported an older version of SLF4J and an
application required the vararg version, then the application would bomb.

Of course, many of these incompatibility issues can be easily solved,
but for many developers who are sick of running into logging problems,
it is better if the problem were avoided in the first
place. Admittedly, this position is pretty conservative to the point of
uncool. Nevertheless, I think that on this one, it is better to be
safe than sorry.




Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-06 Thread Jason Dillon

Will SLF4J's Logger get vararg methods soon?  Please?

--jason


On May 6, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:


Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



The other option, is to create our own SLF4J implementation, which
provides this serialization muck... which may also allow us to add
some ability to inject some state into the MDC and/or NDC to provide
more details about the logger, like which plugin or which ear they
came from, etc...

--jason

On May 6, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:


Jason,

I think we need a better solution then changing the code to have
static loggers. There is tons of code that does
LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()); and so unless we update all of
the code to use static loggers, sooner or later this problem with
seralization will bite us again. So I think we will need a way for a
logger to serialize/deserlialize ok and at the same time continue to
update the code to use static loggers.

Jarek


I think that Jason's proposal to inject contextual information about
the logger via MDC is really very good. I'd be happy to support
context injection via MDC should the need arise.

Jarek's observation about tons of code using the
LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()) idiom may be true for geronimo but
is probably not true generally. The more common idiom declares loggers
as static members.

Moreover, keep in mind that loggers in all underlying implementations,
including j.u.l, log4j and logback, are not intended to survive
serialization. Thus, you may render your own implementation of SLF4J
logger serializable, but I don't see how the underlying loggers would
become serializable.

As far as I can tell, context injection via MDC plus static loggers
should meet most needs without creating complications.






Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-06 Thread Ceki Gulcu
Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 
> The other option, is to create our own SLF4J implementation, which  
> provides this serialization muck... which may also allow us to add  
> some ability to inject some state into the MDC and/or NDC to provide  
> more details about the logger, like which plugin or which ear they  
> came from, etc...
> 
> --jason
> 
> On May 6, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> 
> > Jason,
> >
> > I think we need a better solution then changing the code to have
> > static loggers. There is tons of code that does
> > LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()); and so unless we update all of
> > the code to use static loggers, sooner or later this problem with
> > seralization will bite us again. So I think we will need a way for a
> > logger to serialize/deserlialize ok and at the same time continue to
> > update the code to use static loggers.
> >
> > Jarek

I think that Jason's proposal to inject contextual information about
the logger via MDC is really very good. I'd be happy to support
context injection via MDC should the need arise.

Jarek's observation about tons of code using the
LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()) idiom may be true for geronimo but
is probably not true generally. The more common idiom declares loggers
as static members.

Moreover, keep in mind that loggers in all underlying implementations,
including j.u.l, log4j and logback, are not intended to survive
serialization. Thus, you may render your own implementation of SLF4J
logger serializable, but I don't see how the underlying loggers would
become serializable.

As far as I can tell, context injection via MDC plus static loggers
should meet most needs without creating complications.




Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-06 Thread Ceki Gulcu
Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 
> The other option, is to create our own SLF4J implementation, which  
> provides this serialization muck... which may also allow us to add  
> some ability to inject some state into the MDC and/or NDC to provide  
> more details about the logger, like which plugin or which ear they  
> came from, etc...
> 
> --jason

Hello,

The unqualified recommendation [1] in the SLF4J FAQ for declaring
loggers as instance variables is misleading. I apologize for that. We
recently had a discussion on the slf4j user list on the subject
[2]. Heres is a short summary of that discussion.

Pros for declaring loggers as non-static (instance) variables:

1) they allow for using distinct logger environments, say per
application, by virtue of repository selectors. See also [3].

2) Declaring non-static loggers allows for a copy-and-paste resistant
idiom: 

import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
public class MyClass {
   private final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass());
   ... etc
}

Cons for declaring loggers as non-static (instance) variables:

1) the commonly admitted idiom calls for static loggers, meaning that
the number of classes with static logger declarations runs in the
millions. Static loggers are not going to disappear any time soon.

2) non-static loggers have a small but still non-negligible
computational cost at initialization of each hosting class instance
(of about 100 nanoseconds)

3) non-static loggers need to be declared as transient in serialized
classes

4) only few applications are known to use repository selectors

5) repository selectors do not work for the SLF4J+log4j combination,
nor for the SLF4J+jul combination

Given the reasons listed above, it seems unreasonable to recommend
developers to declare non-static loggers.

[1] http://slf4j.org/faq.html#declared_static
[2] http://www.slf4j.org/pipermail/user/2008-April/000521.html
[3] http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Logging/StaticLog




Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-05 Thread Jason Dillon
The other option, is to create our own SLF4J implementation, which  
provides this serialization muck... which may also allow us to add  
some ability to inject some state into the MDC and/or NDC to provide  
more details about the logger, like which plugin or which ear they  
came from, etc...


--jason


On May 6, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:


Jason,

I think we need a better solution then changing the code to have
static loggers. There is tons of code that does
LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()); and so unless we update all of
the code to use static loggers, sooner or later this problem with
seralization will bite us again. So I think we will need a way for a
logger to serialize/deserlialize ok and at the same time continue to
update the code to use static loggers.

Jarek

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:
I think this is related to loggers not being static in some gbean  
instance

data muck...

--jason




On May 4, 2008, at 9:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Geronimo Revision: 653204 built with tests included

See the full build-0900.log file at

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/build-0900.log


Download the binaries from

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504

[INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL
[INFO]



[INFO] Total time: 32 minutes 47 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Sun May 04 09:34:28 EDT 2008
[INFO] Final Memory: 327M/1012M
[INFO]




TESTSUITE RESULTS (Failures only)
=
See detailed results at

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/testsuite/ResultsSummary.html


Assembly: tomcat
=
See the full test.log file at

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/logs-0900-tomcat/test.log



[INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
[INFO] [INFO] [surefire:test {execution: test}]
[INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
[INFO] [INFO] [jar:jar]
[INFO] [INFO] Building jar:
/home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws- 
tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

[INFO] [INFO] [geronimo:deploy-module {execution: deploy-service}]
[INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based module archive:
/home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws- 
tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

[INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based plan: null
[INFO] [INFO] Distributing module artifact:
/home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws- 
tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

with plan null

[WARNING] Deployer operation failed: java.io.IOException: Unable to

serialize GBeanData for
JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/ 
car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext

[WARNING] org.apache.geronimo.common.DeploymentException:

java.io.IOException: Unable to serialize GBeanData for
JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/ 
car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext

[WARNING]   at

org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:275)

[WARNING]   at

org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:133)
[WARNING]   at  
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native

Method)

[WARNING]   at
sun 
.reflect 
.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)

[WARNING]   at
sun 
.reflect 
.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl 
.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

[WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo 
.gbean 
.runtime 
.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java: 
124)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java: 
236)

[WARNING]   at

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.KernelGBean.invoke(KernelGBean.java:342)
[WARNING]   at  
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor124.invoke(Unknown

Source)

[WARNING]   at
sun 
.reflect 
.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl 
.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

[WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo 
.gbean 
.runtime 
.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java: 
124)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java: 
236)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 

Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-05 Thread Jason Dillon
Well, the code didn't used to have non-static loggers until I whacked  
them with out thinking about it enough.  But I agree that we need a  
better solution too.  Was thinking about adding some magic to the  
serialization bits to have special support for fields which are  
org.slf4j.Logger, to serialize the name of the logger, then re- 
initialize the logger when its deserialized.


Seems like this could all be isolated in GBeanData... but I'm still  
thinking about it.


--jason


On May 6, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:


Jason,

I think we need a better solution then changing the code to have
static loggers. There is tons of code that does
LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()); and so unless we update all of
the code to use static loggers, sooner or later this problem with
seralization will bite us again. So I think we will need a way for a
logger to serialize/deserlialize ok and at the same time continue to
update the code to use static loggers.

Jarek

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:
I think this is related to loggers not being static in some gbean  
instance

data muck...

--jason




On May 4, 2008, at 9:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Geronimo Revision: 653204 built with tests included

See the full build-0900.log file at

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/build-0900.log


Download the binaries from

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504

[INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL
[INFO]



[INFO] Total time: 32 minutes 47 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Sun May 04 09:34:28 EDT 2008
[INFO] Final Memory: 327M/1012M
[INFO]




TESTSUITE RESULTS (Failures only)
=
See detailed results at

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/testsuite/ResultsSummary.html


Assembly: tomcat
=
See the full test.log file at

http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/logs-0900-tomcat/test.log



[INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
[INFO] [INFO] [surefire:test {execution: test}]
[INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
[INFO] [INFO] [jar:jar]
[INFO] [INFO] Building jar:
/home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws- 
tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

[INFO] [INFO] [geronimo:deploy-module {execution: deploy-service}]
[INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based module archive:
/home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws- 
tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

[INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based plan: null
[INFO] [INFO] Distributing module artifact:
/home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws- 
tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

with plan null

[WARNING] Deployer operation failed: java.io.IOException: Unable to

serialize GBeanData for
JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/ 
car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext

[WARNING] org.apache.geronimo.common.DeploymentException:

java.io.IOException: Unable to serialize GBeanData for
JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/ 
car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext

[WARNING]   at

org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:275)

[WARNING]   at

org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:133)
[WARNING]   at  
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native

Method)

[WARNING]   at
sun 
.reflect 
.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)

[WARNING]   at
sun 
.reflect 
.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl 
.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

[WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo 
.gbean 
.runtime 
.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java: 
124)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java: 
236)

[WARNING]   at

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.KernelGBean.invoke(KernelGBean.java:342)
[WARNING]   at  
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor124.invoke(Unknown

Source)

[WARNING]   at
sun 
.reflect 
.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl 
.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

[WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo 
.gbean 
.runtime 
.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java: 
124)

[WARNING]   at
org 
.apache 

Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-05 Thread Jarek Gawor
Jason,

I think we need a better solution then changing the code to have
static loggers. There is tons of code that does
LoggerFactory.getLogger(getClass()); and so unless we update all of
the code to use static loggers, sooner or later this problem with
seralization will bite us again. So I think we will need a way for a
logger to serialize/deserlialize ok and at the same time continue to
update the code to use static loggers.

Jarek

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is related to loggers not being static in some gbean instance
> data muck...
>
>  --jason
>
>
>
>
>  On May 4, 2008, at 9:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > Geronimo Revision: 653204 built with tests included
> >
> > See the full build-0900.log file at
> http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/build-0900.log
> >
> > Download the binaries from
> http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504
> > [INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL
> > [INFO]
> 
> > [INFO] Total time: 32 minutes 47 seconds
> > [INFO] Finished at: Sun May 04 09:34:28 EDT 2008
> > [INFO] Final Memory: 327M/1012M
> > [INFO]
> 
> >
> > TESTSUITE RESULTS (Failures only)
> > =
> > See detailed results at
> http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/testsuite/ResultsSummary.html
> >
> > Assembly: tomcat
> > =
> > See the full test.log file at
> http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/logs-0900-tomcat/test.log
> >
> >
> > [INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
> > [INFO] [INFO] [surefire:test {execution: test}]
> > [INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
> > [INFO] [INFO] [jar:jar]
> > [INFO] [INFO] Building jar:
> /home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > [INFO] [INFO] [geronimo:deploy-module {execution: deploy-service}]
> > [INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based module archive:
> /home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > [INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based plan: null
> > [INFO] [INFO] Distributing module artifact:
> /home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar
> with plan null
> > [WARNING] Deployer operation failed: java.io.IOException: Unable to
> serialize GBeanData for
> JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext
> > [WARNING] org.apache.geronimo.common.DeploymentException:
> java.io.IOException: Unable to serialize GBeanData for
> JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:275)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:133)
> > [WARNING]   at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> Method)
> > [WARNING]   at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> > [WARNING]   at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > [WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java:124)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java:236)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.kernel.KernelGBean.invoke(KernelGBean.java:342)
> > [WARNING]   at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor124.invoke(Unknown
> Source)
> > [WARNING]   at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> > [WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java:124)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java:236)
> > [WARNING]   at
> org.apache.geronimo.system.jmx.MBeanGBeanBridge.invoke(MBeanGBeanBridge.java:172)
> > [WARNING]   at
> com.sun.jmx.mbeanserver.DynamicMetaDataImpl.invoke(DynamicMetaDataImpl.java:213)
> > [WARNING]   at
> 

Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-04 Thread Jarek Gawor
I'm seeing the following (new) exceptions while building trunk on
Windows (when cars are being created) but everything builds ok:

[ERROR] The protocol for the JAR file's URL is not supported
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Only local file jars are supported jar:
file:/C:/m2/org/apache/geronimo/configs/system-database/2.2-SNAPSHOT/system-database-2.2-SNAPSHOT.car!/rar/tranql-connector-1.4.jar

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.UrlResourceFinder.cacheUrl(UrlResourceFinder.java:231)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.UrlResourceFinder.rebuildClassPath(UrlResourceFinder.java:188)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.UrlResourceFinder.addUrls(UrlResourceFinder.java:142)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.UrlResourceFinder.addUrls(UrlResourceFinder.java:127)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.JarFileClassLoader$2.run(JarFileClassLoader.java:159)
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.JarFileClassLoader.addURLs(JarFileClassLoader.java:157)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.classloader.JarFileClassLoader.(JarFileClassLoader.java:108)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.Configuration.createConfigurationClasssLoader(Configuration.java:377)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.Configuration.(Configuration.java:268)
sun.reflect.GeneratedConstructorAccessor140.newInstance(Unknown Source)

sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:27)
java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:494)
org.apache.xbean.recipe.ObjectRecipe.createInstance(ObjectRecipe.java:390)
org.apache.xbean.recipe.ObjectRecipe.create(ObjectRecipe.java:194)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.createInstance(GBeanInstance.java:910)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.attemptFullStart(GBeanInstanceState.java:269)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.start(GBeanInstanceState.java:103)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.start(GBeanInstance.java:524)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.startGBean(BasicKernel.java:359)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.KernelConfigurationManager.load(KernelConfigurationManager.java:162)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.SimpleConfigurationManager.loadConfiguration(SimpleConfigurationManager.java:312)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.SimpleConfigurationManager.loadConfiguration(SimpleConfigurationManager.java:280)
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor145.invoke(Unknown Source)

sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java:34)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java:124)

org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:815)
org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.RawInvoker.invoke(RawInvoker.java:57)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.RawOperationInvoker.invoke(RawOperationInvoker.java:35)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.ProxyMethodInterceptor.intercept(ProxyMethodInterceptor.java:96)

org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.ConfigurationManager$$EnhancerByCGLIB$$513ce7f1.loadConfiguration()

org.apache.geronimo.mavenplugins.car.PackageMojo.buildPackage(PackageMojo.java:305)

org.apache.geronimo.mavenplugins.car.PackageMojo.doExecute(PackageMojo.java:227)
org.codehaus.mojo.pluginsupport.MojoSupport.execute(MojoSupport.java:122)

org.apache.maven.plugin.DefaultPluginManager.executeMojo(DefaultPluginManager.java:443)

org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoals(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:539)

org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoalWithLifecycle(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:480)

org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoal(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:459)

org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeGoalAndHandleFailures(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:311)

org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.executeTaskSegments(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:278)

org.apache.maven.lifecycle.DefaultLifecycleExecutor.execute(DefaultLifecycleExecutor.java:143)
org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:334)
org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:125)
org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main(MavenCli.java:280)
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)

sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)

sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
org.codehaus.classworlds.Launcher.launchEnhanced(Launcher.java:315)

Re: [BUILD] trunk: Failed for Revision: 653204

2008-05-04 Thread Jason Dillon
I think this is related to loggers not being static in some gbean  
instance data muck...


--jason


On May 4, 2008, at 9:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Geronimo Revision: 653204 built with tests included

See the full build-0900.log file at 
http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/build-0900.log

Download the binaries from 
http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL
[INFO]  


[INFO] Total time: 32 minutes 47 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Sun May 04 09:34:28 EDT 2008
[INFO] Final Memory: 327M/1012M
[INFO]  



TESTSUITE RESULTS (Failures only)
=
See detailed results at 
http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/testsuite/ResultsSummary.html

Assembly: tomcat
=
See the full test.log file at 
http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20080504/logs-0900-tomcat/test.log


[INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
[INFO] [INFO] [surefire:test {execution: test}]
[INFO] [INFO] Tests are skipped.
[INFO] [INFO] [jar:jar]
[INFO] [INFO] Building jar: /home/geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/ 
webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/jaxws-client/target/jaxws- 
client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

[INFO] [INFO] [geronimo:deploy-module {execution: deploy-service}]
[INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based module archive: /home/ 
geronimo/geronimo/trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/ 
jaxws-client/target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar

[INFO] [INFO] Using non-artifact based plan: null
[INFO] [INFO] Distributing module artifact: /home/geronimo/geronimo/ 
trunk/testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests/jaxws-client/ 
target/jaxws-client-2.2-SNAPSHOT.jar with plan null
[WARNING] Deployer operation failed: java.io.IOException: Unable to  
serialize GBeanData for JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/car? 
J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/ 
car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext
[WARNING] org.apache.geronimo.common.DeploymentException:  
java.io.IOException: Unable to serialize GBeanData for JEE5/ 
JAXWSClient/1.1/car?J2EEApplication=JEE5/JAXWSClient/1.1/ 
car,j2eeType=StaticJndiContext,name=StaticJndiContext
[WARNING] 	at  
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:275)
[WARNING] 	at  
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.Deployer.deploy(Deployer.java:133)
[WARNING] 	at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native  
Method)
[WARNING] 	at  
sun 
.reflect 
.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
[WARNING] 	at  
sun 
.reflect 
.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl 
.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

[WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo 
.gbean 
.runtime.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java: 
34)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java:124)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)
[WARNING] 	at  
org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java: 
236)
[WARNING] 	at  
org.apache.geronimo.kernel.KernelGBean.invoke(KernelGBean.java:342)
[WARNING] 	at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor124.invoke(Unknown  
Source)
[WARNING] 	at  
sun 
.reflect 
.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl 
.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)

[WARNING]   at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo 
.gbean 
.runtime.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(ReflectionMethodInvoker.java: 
34)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperation.java:124)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance.java:849)
[WARNING] 	at  
org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.invoke(BasicKernel.java: 
236)
[WARNING] 	at  
org 
.apache 
.geronimo.system.jmx.MBeanGBeanBridge.invoke(MBeanGBeanBridge.java: 
172)
[WARNING] 	at  
com 
.sun 
.jmx.mbeanserver.DynamicMetaDataImpl.invoke(DynamicMetaDataImpl.java: 
213)
[WARNING] 	at  
com.sun.jmx.mbeanserver.MetaDataImpl.invoke(MetaDataImpl.java:220)
[WARNING] 	at  
com 
.sun 
.jmx 
.interceptor 
.DefaultMBeanServerInterceptor 
.invoke(DefaultMBeanServerInterceptor.java:815)
[WARNING] 	at  
com.sun.jmx.mbeanserver.JmxMBeanServer.invoke(JmxMBeanServer.java:784)
[WARNING] 	at  
javax 
.management 
.remote.rmi.RMIConnectionImpl.doOperation(RMIConnectionImpl.java:1410)
[WARNING] 	at javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIConnectionImpl.access 
$100(RMIConnectionImpl.java:81)
[WARNING] 	at javax.management.remote.rmi.RMIConnectionImpl 
$PrivilegedOperation.run(RMIConnectionImpl.java:1247)
[WARNING] 	at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native  
Method)
[WARNING] 	at  
javax 
.management 
.remote