View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820686#3820686
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820686
So what would happen in the case of async invocations? Does the whole state contained
in the invocati
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820681#3820681
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820681
Devaraj,
This is one of the requirements for the new JBoss/JMS implementation. It is on the
roadmap
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820675#3820675
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820675
Thinking about it a little further, even the TX interceptor case state is only
meaningful for the life
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820674#3820674
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820674
i've committed fixes to handle the feed being unavailable and the item.count < maxItem
case.
---
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820673#3820673
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820673
"Bill Burke" wrote :
I agree with Marc. 99% of use cases wil not want to chance the interceptor stac
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820672#3820672
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820672
"rythos" wrote : Yeah, you are right in this example. My motivating example wasn't
very motivating. :)
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820670#3820670
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820670
"marc fleury" wrote : Letting a "manager" control the stack, rather than a self
assembled list doesn't
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820669#3820669
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820669
"marc fleury" wrote : on the topic of return interceptors.
Try catch is ok but the important point
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820668#3820668
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820668
"rythos" wrote : So for some versions of the class being loaded the advice applies,
and for others it
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820667#3820667
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820667
he ClassLoaderDomain cannot be a contract required at the ClassLoader imiplementation
level as this
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820661#3820661
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820661
Show the context of the stack trace where the ClassCastException occurs. The unit
tests for the perfor
Bugs item #877974, was opened at 2004-01-15 18:57
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by starksm
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=877974&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
>Status: Pending
>Resolution: Later
Prio
I've always been curious what operating systems people run JBoss on and
develop for JBoss on as well as what companies/organizations use JBoss. I
was hoping some folks might help satisfy my curiosity:
http://jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=WhatIsYourFavoriteOperatingSystem
Please fill out this pag
Bugs item #886798, was opened at 2004-01-29 00:34
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by starksm
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=886798&group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.2
>Status: Pending
>Resolution: Later
Priority
Bugs item #882114, was opened at 2004-01-22 05:19
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by starksm
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=882114&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
Prior
Bugs item #889312, was opened at 2004-02-02 13:45
Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by starksm
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=889312&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Invalid
Bugs item #887654, was opened at 2004-01-30 07:06
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by starksm
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=887654&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
>Resolution: Works For Me
P
Bugs item #887832, was opened at 2004-01-30 21:56
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by lafr
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=887832&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Subm
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820654#3820654
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820654
So for some versions of the class being loaded the advice applies, and for others it
doesn't? I don't
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820653#3820653
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820653
Yeah, you are right in this example. My motivating example wasn't very motivating. :)
AspectJ best pra
Patches item #892943, was opened at 2004-02-08 18:44
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376687&aid=892943&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resoluti
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820651#3820651
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820651
Letting a "manager" control the stack, rather than a self assembled list doesn't sound
like a bad idea
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820650#3820650
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820650
Also. InvocationResponse is really only useful when going across network boundaries as
there needs to
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820649#3820649
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820649
I also do not see why the Invocation should be directing any of the interceptor usage,
which is really
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820647#3820647
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820647
on the topic of return interceptors.
Try catch is ok but the important point is interceptor variabl
Make sure you are doing a clean build before checking in refactoring
changes.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
The use of trove seems to be an unnecessary dependency. Why is this
really needed?
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
---
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Pr
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820646#3820646
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820646
The ClassLoaderDomain cannot be a contract required at the ClassLoader imiplementation
level as this i
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820642#3820642
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820642
Julien,
OK, sounds great. I will wait a day or two before switching over. I checked out what
you have
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820641#3820641
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820641
Uncheck the default executable and specifiy "java" and then try
-
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820639#3820639
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820639
Was thinking about how to scope advice bindings. Currently if you have two versions
of the same class
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820637#3820637
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820637
FYI, for above couldn't it be solved by a caller pointcut in JBoss AOP? Where
withClass would be !(Qu
Bugs item #889764, was opened at 2004-02-03 15:56
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by pilhuhn
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=889764&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: v3.2
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Duplicate
Priority
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820635#3820635
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820635
Try - finally block is just a convenient programming trick, is not bringing any new
functionality and
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820634#3820634
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820634
1. I think it's fairly stable though it's not been tested yet, I will test it soon on
jboss.org. I am
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820633#3820633
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820633
Another thing about the Invocation object in the AOP layer is the concept of metadata
resolving. Meta
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3820632#3820632
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3820632
YOu can't add an interceptor for the return as it is one call. We don't want to add
ability (adding a
Patches item #892783, was opened at 2004-02-08 11:06
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376687&aid=892783&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resoluti
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
===
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net/ FOR DETAILS==
===
51 matches
Mail list logo
