On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:52:54AM -0700, marc fleury wrote:
I totally agree with the article, I believe we should merge our
configuration files today, and get rid of the unreadable XML,
You keep saying unreadable XML.
XML is now the lingua franca of human-readable structured data.
XHTML,
XML is now the lingua franca of human-readable structured data.
XHTML, JSTL, Ant configs, SOAP, etc., mean that any serious designer of web
applications must be proficient in reading and writing XML.
Saying unreadable XML in the 21st century is like saying
unreadable French in the 18th
On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 10:54:43AM +0300, Juha-P Lindfors wrote:
And here I was thinking the point of XML was to make it easier for
the *machine* to parse structured data.
In which case, it would all be ASN.1.
jns:implements name=MyInterface/
jns:implements name=ThatOtherInterface/
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Michael Robinson wrote:
Someone who was literate in XML, but with no prior exposure to
the syntax and semantics of Java, could get more meaning out of the
XML version than the Java version.
Really? To me both would look like nonsense.
that language will be more concise
Comments are inline.
Our default optimization of ejb calls through the remote interface
is not working with the servlet 2.3 container class loading model
[...]
We can deal with this by either
1. ignore the servlet 2.3 class loading model, which is what
Jetty does by default
Sounds good,
Bugs item #547128, was opened at 2002-04-22 15:33
You can respond by visiting:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=547128group_id=22866
Category: CatalinaBundle
Group: v2.4 (stable)
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Erik Konijnenburg (konijnenburg)
Bugs item #549775, was opened at 2002-04-28 22:13
You can respond by visiting:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=549775group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Stephen Coy (scoy)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #547128, was opened at 2002-04-22 08:33
You can respond by visiting:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=547128group_id=22866
Category: CatalinaBundle
Group: v2.4 (stable)
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Erik Konijnenburg (konijnenburg)
Ok this is really more of Bill Burke's stuff. I was talking to him on
Friday on IM.
Another idea coming from the world of CORBA is that of dynamic clients and
server side servants.
It seems both ideas are linked and quite simple to implement.
Take my previous were we specify a stack of client
ok,
I know I asked already and I can't remember the reason why creating an
ObjectName should be S slow. Can one of the JMX gurus enlighten me and
explain the reason.
(yes again sorry)
last I remembered the new ObjectName would take half the time of the
invocation (!).
If that is still
Holly molly
|Number of tests run: 585
|
|
|
|Successful tests: 582
|Errors:1
|Failures: 2
|
|
we are almost there, kudos to Mr Stark for this push.
marcf
because an object name contains a set of properties that need to be
parsed and may also be a pattern which needs to be determined
the current implementation does this eagerly at object name creation
time
-- Juha
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
ok,
I know I asked already and I
|because an object name contains a set of properties that need to be
|parsed and may also be a pattern which needs to be determined
right the value=name pairs
|the current implementation does this eagerly at object name creation
|time
can we do this lazily? can't we build equality and hash on
From: Andreas Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: JBossMQ Questions
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:19:22 -0700
Hi Hiram
Hi Andreas,
Just started to implement JSR-77 performance
monitoring on JBossMQ (was just in the flow
after the recent
The clustering test has 1 failure that I haven't been able to figure out. I
guess I will have to comment it out.(the erroneous test)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 1:54 PM
To: [EMAIL
Juha,
Using a set of properties to identify an object just seems werid to me. WHY
did the JMX spec do this??? Why not just use a unique string to identify an
object??? Yes, I see one reasone, so you can do querys and lookup objects
based on properties, buy you could still do that without
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
|because an object name contains a set of properties that need to be
|parsed and may also be a pattern which needs to be determined
right the value=name pairs
Which in a string passed to a constructor are not guaranteed to be
canonical or well
From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Why is new ObjectName() so slow?
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:49:46 -0700
|because an object name contains a set of properties that need to be
|parsed
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
|because an object name contains a set of properties that need to be
|parsed and may also be a pattern which needs to be determined
right the value=name pairs
|the current implementation does this eagerly at object name creation
|time
can we do
|Using a set of properties to identify an object just seems werid
|to me. WHY
|did the JMX spec do this??? Why not just use a unique string to
|identify an
|object??? Yes, I see one reasone, so you can do querys and lookup objects
|based on properties, buy you could still do that without
wrong answer trevor,
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: Trevor Squires [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 11:23 AM
|To: marc fleury
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Why is new ObjectName() so slow?
|
|
|On
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Using a set of properties to identify an object just seems werid to me.
yes. it's not just wierd, its clearly a poor design choice in this case.
the object name is used as an identifier and therefore needed for lookup.
overloading the identifier to
|I've go a feeling that the order of the properties does not matter, so
|DefaultDomain:service=XADataSource,name=DefaultDS would be the
|same object
|as DefaultDomain:name=DefaultDS,service=XADataSource.
|I think that's whey he has to parse it early.
right, I ask this as well, I don't remember
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
Juha for example. By spec must we have
Domain1:name1=value1;name2=value2 == Domain1:name2=value2;name1=value1 ???
I would imagine so,
yes and this is the problem for performance
-- Juha
___
|The question at the moment is, why do you need to create an object name
|per invocation? Is it possible to cache the object names by mapping them
|to *real* identifies as opposed to this property nonsense? (how many
That is what I do today, with the EJB layer. This means however that we
pass
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
2 solutions.
1- I build a mapper that takes String and returns ObjectName
2- you build a ObjectName implementation that caches the ObjectName and
returns the right Object if you pass me exactly the same String.
Come to think of it we probably need
I'm pleased to say that after my latest fixes to the jca stuff i get, for
Branch_3_0:
Tests Failures Errors Success rate Time
582 00 100.00% 1348.885
on my linux jdk 1.4 setup.
david jencks
On 2002.04.28 13:54:00 -0400 marc fleury wrote:
Holly molly
|Number of
|Right now I need to take a time out on this. Need to finish the inforIT,
|explain our interceptors to EG and then do that finetuning for training
|slides.
You are a young man with his priorities straight, I like that. Definitely
write that informIT article, I bust my ass to give you exposure,
Hooray!
Then 3.0RC1 has graduated. Time to FINAL. ( I believe Scott wants to do a
RC2 for at least a week).
Time to congratulate each other.
This is history in the making and I am glad to be here with you guys.
PLeC (Excellent)
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry if I'm just adding noise, but...
It sounds like the biggest problem is that you keep parsing the same string
into it's canonical form. Can't the jmx server cache the canonical names of
the given ObjectNames? Then, for each new ObjectName(), check the cache,
and if it doesn't exist, parse
|Sorry if I'm just adding noise, but...
|
|It sounds like the biggest problem is that you keep parsing the same string
|into it's canonical form. Can't the jmx server cache the
|canonical names of
|the given ObjectNames? Then, for each new ObjectName(), check the cache,
|and if it doesn't
Oh by the way if someone feels heroic today here is the code from
JRMPInvoker
I believe the line that is commented out on the new ObjectName should either
be the one (with cache at the JMX level solution 2 discussed) or should do a
look up on the Registry but with the String as opposed to a int
It's a milestone, but ...
1. There are more bugs
2. this is only one jvm.
3. I think the testsuite should run twice with no errors (see bug 549775)
2.a Well, 1.9 jvms. Running on osx, everything passes except the cluster
tests, which presumably fail because I removed cluster-service.xml. For
Except that if you run the test twice in a row the error count does
not stay at 0. Still more work to do.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Jencks
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
Oh by the way if someone feels heroic today here is the code from
JRMPInvoker
Ok, let me try a different answer then:
I'm not familiar with the invokers and I've not seen the whole chain for
JRMP so I'll ask a stupid question:
Is there *any* way you
I'll be doing some major commits in a few hours. I haven't merged from
mainline in about 1.5 weeks so I may kill commits that have been done in
that timespan. Sorry for the problems...
Bill
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
oh well, now the trick is to put the champagne bottle cork BACK in the
bottle :)
he he
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev]
Hi,
Sorry, it´s me again.
I´m still trying to get virtual hosts working via apache2.0.35 using the
mod_webapp connector, jboss3.0RC1 and tomcat4.0.3.
I don´t want to get on your nerves but I´ve tried just about everything and
I haven´t received any answers to my previous virtual host
|Is there *any* way you can get the ObjectName instance to be
|serialised/deserialised in the call?
I serialize a int hash from the ObjectName. I used to serialize the
string that creates the Objectname, the line that is commented out, all it
does is get the string from a deserialized
Negative. Merge the changes into your view before committing
by updating your view. Don't just dump old code into main.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Your asking at the wrong time as I don't care about hooking up an
external Apache server to Tomcat while Tomcat inside of JBoss
works and we are in the process of getting releases out. Further,
mod_webapp seems about an alpha release given all the problems
on the tomcat list and I'm not debugging
Just to close the circle ( I am documenting this in the training slides).
The reason for this is that the invokers today are tied to the EJB view of
the world or at least the subset of the client interceptors that embed their
ObjectName and then we have full control over the way the Object is
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
The reason I don't serialize the instance itself is that the client needs to
know about the ObjectName class then and I don't want to ship all of JMX to
a client.
are we in sync?
marcf
Understood now. IMO Juha's solution seems better insulated
Hi Hiram
I think you might be confused because the JMSServer supports stateless
connection protocols such as RMI. So, this means is that the JMSServer
does
not keep track of the connections that are established with him. Once a
client establishes a connection with the server, he passes a
Number of tests run: 585
Successful tests: 574
Errors:0
Failures: 11
[time of test: 29 April 2002 0:39 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.0]
[java.vendor: IBM Corporation]
Juha-P Lindfors wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, marc fleury wrote:
Juha for example. By spec must we have
Domain1:name1=value1;name2=value2 == Domain1:name2=value2;name1=value1 ???
I would imagine so,
yes and this is the problem for performance
-- Juha
I've been following this discussion and
Just did my commits. Testsuite passes with flying colors. 0 errors.
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
I am using the
org.jboss.resource.adapter.jdbc.xa.XAManagedConnection (and related Factory) to
load my Informix XA JDBC connections.Unfortunately I am consistently getting XAExceptions, of the XAER_OUTSIDE
variety. I have tracked the problem down to whatI think is an
Informix Driver bug,
JBoss 3.1 (CVS-HEAD) now has the ability to bind multiple invokers per EJB
container. This means that one EJB container can serve up requests from
IIOP, RMI, SOAP, your-protocol-here all at the same time. Also, if your
EJBs are configured correctly in jboss.xml Beans accessed through bean
IIOP is broken for now. I've turned it off until I can fix it. Sorry, but
I wanted to get my commits in for multi-invokers before my code diverged too
much from the mainline. I'll be working on IIOP for the next couple of days
to get it working.
Sorry and regards,
Bill
FYI,
Forgot to say that this new change also allows you to define multiple
client-proxy bindings per EJB container. So an invoker-proxy-binding
could use the same invoker, but different client-interceptors.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I need to think about this a little more, but if we fix it the fix should
be in the jca wrapper, not the tx manager.
Not having yet thought about it more, I wonder if the spec-compliant jca
autocommit behavior would help: in the absence of a explicit local tx or
xa tx, all operations are
As it is packaged now, the
org/jboss/test/jrmp/test/CustomSocketsUnitTestCase
cannot be run more than once because it includes the custom RMI
socket factories it uses in the deployment package. Because of how the
RMI subsystem tracks socket factory uniqueness(it considers the factory
class
Number of tests run: 585
Successful tests: 577
Errors:8
Failures: 0
[time of test: 29 April 2002 2:43 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1]
[java.vendor: Blackdown Java-Linux
|Understood now. IMO Juha's solution seems better insulated from changes
|to JMX spec (or implementation for that matter).
I agree, it would also be JDK1.5 poopoo code from SUN immune :)
So this solution has a clear edge.
|Just to be a complete pain - the client would only need ObjectName,
Number of tests run: 585
Successful tests: 582
Errors:0
Failures: 3
[time of test: 29 April 2002 4:1 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1]
[java.vendor: Blackdown Java-Linux
On 2002.04.28 23:08:53 -0400 Larry Sanderson wrote:
Messages inlined...
likewise
Not having yet thought about it more, I wonder if the spec-compliant
jca
autocommit behavior would help: in the absence of a explicit local tx
or
xa tx, all operations are performed in their own automatic
I think we need something more global. What I am thinking of is a
dynamic extension of the server lib directory. A deployment package
identifies a jar as being an extension jar and it has a version. If a
jar with the same version exists in the extension cache, the package jar is
ignored, else it
Number of tests run: 585
Successful tests: 576
Errors:8
Failures: 1
[time of test: 29 April 2002 5:35 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1]
[java.vendor: Sun Microsystems Inc.]
Number of tests run: 578
Successful tests: 568
Errors:9
Failures: 1
[time of test: 29 April 2002 7:8 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1_02]
[java.vendor: Sun Microsystems
60 matches
Mail list logo
