===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss1.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
NOTE: Sourceforge pserver cvs access is now using the backup server -
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss1.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
NOTE: Sourceforge pserver cvs access is now using the backup server -
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 06:54, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I would say the opposite behavior should be the default since if
there is an
ejb-link
it must be resolvable in the scope of the current deployment
while a jndi-name
cannot in general be resolved since this can refer to an external
Reply inline.
I would say the opposite behavior should be the default since if
there is an
ejb-link
it must be resolvable in the scope of the current deployment
while a jndi-name
cannot in general be resolved since this can refer to an external
server that
need not even be available during
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss1.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
NOTE: Sourceforge pserver cvs access is now using the backup server -
Bugs item #767716, was opened at 2003-07-08 14:25
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=767716group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
I see what you are saying about breaking the mirror, the removal of
deployers should be controlled by the deployer services.
Code already exists in ServerImpl.ShutdownHook.shutdown() to invoke
ServiceController.shutdown(), which walks backwards through it's service
list to stop, destroy and
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Scott Stark wrote:
There is no need for an ejb-local-ref in the JBoss specific descriptors as
the ejb-link element handles this in the standard descriptor.
There is no reason
why the metadata needs to be expanded to allow for specifying the
local home
jndi
Victor Langelo wrote:
I agree with Scott. Having a element be optional in the DTD doesn't mean it
optional for a correct deployment. The intent is that a deployment
descriptor may be written by a developer without the ejb-link. The link will
be specified later by the deployer or integrator.
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss1.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
NOTE: Sourceforge pserver cvs access is now using the backup server -
Automated JBoss(Branch_3_2 WonderLand) Testsuite Results: 8-July-2003
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1369
Successful tests: 1352
Errors:10
Failures: 7
Bugs item #767905, was opened at 2003-07-08 10:00
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=767905group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution:
Bugs item #767905, was opened at 2003-07-08 10:00
Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by kevin-duffey
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=767905group_id=22866
Category: Clustering
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Ok, then I agree with adding the ejb-local-ref support.
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The spec makes the usage optional as well:
The Application Assembler *can* use the ejb-link element in the
Theoretically, but a problem with not using the MainDeployer.shutdown is that
the deployment shutdown order will change since the MainDeployer.removeDeployer
method is not iterating over the deploymentList in reverse order as is the case
for MainDeployer.shutdown. If this is corrected then the
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss1.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss1.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few improvements the
current JBossMQ implementation that is in CVS HEAD. I would consider a
large porting of what I did refactoring to simplify the current code
base to allow future growth without having to sacrifice current features
or
And what interaction has there been with Nathan who originally responded to
the rewrite query?
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few
Hiram,
As you may know, we are going in a different direction with JMS than the
original architecture coded by Norbert Lataille. We are doing a rewrite
so patches to the old JBossMQ have a limited lifetime. That means that
changes made to the old JBossMQ will most likely not be part of HEAD or
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation to 'appear' and it has not.
So it's time for me to start the engine again and make some needed
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 23:41, Nathan Phelps wrote:
In line...
Hiram,
As you may know, we are going in a different direction with JMS than the
original architecture coded by Norbert Lataille. We are doing a rewrite
I guess I had it good. Norbert made a good start. At least basic
pub/sub
22 matches
Mail list logo
