BÝZÝMLE ÇALIÞMAK ÝSTERMÝSÝNÝZ ?
DALTONS KÝMDÝR;
1996 yýlýnda Galatasaray Lisesi'nde okurken, gençlere yönelik organizasyon
sektöründeki arzýn talebi karþýlamadýðýný farkýna varan 4 genç giriþimcinin
yarattýklarý oluþum, ilk olarak kendi çevrelerindeki gençler için düzenledikleri
Uludað ve
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
Bugs item #804491, was opened at 2003-09-11 07:56
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by belaban
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=804491&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submi
Bugs item #804491, was opened at 2003-09-11 14:56
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bcotton969
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=804491&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Su
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:27, marc fleury wrote:
> You guys are talking about a 3.3 proxy talking to a 3.2 server?
>
3.2.1 proxy talking to 3.2.2 server or vice versa.
> If that is the case, it is not really relevant as most proxies are
> dynamically generated. Or are you talking about portabi
You guys are talking about a 3.3 proxy talking to a 3.2 server?
If that is the case, it is not really relevant as most proxies are
dynamically generated. Or are you talking about portability of
interceptors working on the Invocation objects?
The stability of 3.2 and its performance are priori
I'd rather not maintain something like that. What do you think?
IMHO, we should guarantee over-the-wire compatibility only for a
specific branch. over-the-wire compatibility should be breakable
between major releases.
Adrian Brock wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 23:00, Bill Burke wrote:
Ok, I
Ok, I wouldn't be able to improve raw, over-the-wire, remote performance
without breaking compatibility with older JBoss versions.
Bill
Bill Burke wrote:
Only problem here is that what I've done so far is not backward
compatible with a previous version of JBoss. I guess this is important.
Only problem here is that what I've done so far is not backward
compatible with a previous version of JBoss. I guess this is important.
correct? I can make it compatible, but it will be a tiny bit ugly.
I did increase performance for noop local interface calls for SLSB by 20%.
Adrian Brock
Fixed, it now uses org.jboss.util.NestedRuntimeException
Regards,
Adrian
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 16:26, Rod Burgett wrote:
> I'm trying to compile the 3.2 snapshot with Sun's 1.3.1_07 jdk. It seems
> that org.jboss.tm.TxUtils.java is trying to use a RuntimeException
> constructor with Throwable pa
I'm trying to compile the 3.2 snapshot with Sun's 1.3.1_07 jdk. It seems
that org.jboss.tm.TxUtils.java is trying to use a RuntimeException
constructor with Throwable parameter. But that ctor is only available in
1.4. Has support for 1.3.1 been abandoned, or is this a bug?
It can be coaxed thr
Bugs item #804491, was opened at 2003-09-11 14:56
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bcotton969
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=804491&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Su
Bugs item #804491, was opened at 2003-09-11 14:56
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=804491&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
P
Bugs item #796177, was opened at 2003-08-27 14:00
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by patriot1burke
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=796177&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priorit
15 matches
Mail list logo
