Hi Dain,
How about byte code post-processing to add the metadata? This
would allow changing the metadata without changing or recompiling
the code. The class could also optionally contain a reference id for
the metadata, rather than the metadata itself, so that it could be
changed dynamically at
Hi guys,
I've just been skimming this thread, but it strikes me as possible
that it is based on a misunderstanding. Dave, do you know that
you should not define a cmp field for a foreign key column? So
changing the naming convention wouldn't be necessary to get it to
work by default. Sorry
On 9 Nov 01, at 15:13, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
this yet. I'm considering supporting the mapping a cmp-field to the same
column as a cmr-field, but this opens a big can of worms. Most of the
Hi Dain,
For what it's worth, this is how I do it in the MVCSoft Persistence
Manager, and just have
On 22 Oct 01, at 14:42, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I think, you are right .. should have read the spec more
deeply .. but
this restriction implies, that foreign keys must never have a
NOT NULL
constraint. I wonder, if that was an intended behaviour?!
Hi guys,
You can have not null
Hi Vincent,
The specification does not indicate the limitations of the scope in
which local interfaces are effective, beyond requiring that they be
co-located in a JVM. I wish it did, and I advocated a specific
statement in the spec in a discussion on ejb-interest.
Obviously
, if your transaction is propagated with an
optimized local call, where and how do you start it?
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
Dan OConnor wrote:
Hi guys,
I was hoping someone would know where this bug would be as
soon as I described the symptoms.
A bean-managed entity
Hi guys,
I was hoping someone would know where this bug would be as
soon as I described the symptoms.
A bean-managed entity registers a synchronization object with a
transaction. If it is called from a web-tier client with optimizations
turned on, it fails like this:
The problem occurs with 2.2.4-BETA with Tomcat, like you
can download from the web site.
On 26 Jul 01, at 13:16, marc fleury wrote:
what version?
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan
|OConnor
|Sent: Thursday, July 26
On 26 Jul 01, at 12:11, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
So, it calls getTransaction which will return null if there is no current
tx. I think in that case, the tx invocation interceptor creates a new tx.
Which would be the expected behavior. I might have to set up
Tomcat with my development
On 26 Jul 01, at 12:11, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
So, it calls getTransaction which will return null if there is no current
tx. I think in that case, the tx invocation interceptor creates a new tx.
Which would be the expected behavior. I might have to set up
Tomcat with my development
.
-Dan
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
Dan OConnor wrote:
Hi guys,
I was hoping someone would know where this bug would be as
soon as I described the symptoms.
A bean-managed entity registers a synchronization object with a
transaction. If it is called from a web-tier
Sorry, I'm an idiot. 2.4-BETA. I'll try to figure this out first thing
tomorrow.
-Dan
On 26 Jul 01, at 15:01, Dan OConnor wrote:
The problem occurs with 2.2.4-BETA with Tomcat, like you
can download from the web site.
On 26 Jul 01, at 13:16, marc fleury wrote:
what version
This thread is a little funny to me. We got the idea of a cache key
from a thread on ejb-interest, where Jonathan Wheedon (Borland's
very intelligent alien...their Rickard, so to speak) described how it
was implemented in IAS. But if memory serves me, the trigger for
the thread was how the
Hi Marc,
You're right. That was kind of an annoying e-mail. Sorry. And I'll try
never to say pattern again, LOL. Still friends? :-)
By the way, if anyone is interested in finding out what the heck I
was talking about, the origins of the serialization cache key in
Jonathan Weedon's work is
Just to keep things even, I agree with Marc. This case is
specifically described in 7.4.2 of EJB 2.0 PFD2:
7.4.2A session objects conversational state is not
transactional. It is not automatically rolled back to its initial state if
the transaction in which the object has participated rolls
Yes, remove is not transactional, go ahead and remove the bean
from the cache. But I disagree with the following:
|I agree with Bill - removing everything involved in the rolled-back
|transaction from the cache is a must.
|
|-danch
|
|Bill Burke wrote:
|
| Nope, with the old code, B
On 3 Jul 01, at 16:08, marc fleury wrote:
Hi Marc,
I can't take a chill pill as I am signing off for several hours and
possibly the evening, to go over my sister's house for dinner. #1 is
almost correct: you can call remove on a transactional stateful
session bean--you just can't do it when
On 30 Jun 01, at 16:19, Ole Husgaard wrote:
I have to warn against the obvious way of doing local
transaction numbering:
A server-wide WeakHashMap that maps Transaction to
Integer.
Problem with this is that there may not be a one-to-one
correspondence between Transaction instances and the
the current interceptor architecture plugs into
the local interfaces method invocation. Does this exist?
- Original Message -
From: Dan OConnor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:39 PM
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Local interfaces prototype
Hi
On 10 Jun 01, at 20:57, marc fleury wrote:
, I am not sure I understand the thought fully but the CI stuff is going
to be fully detached from the invocation layer (part of Rabbit hole). I
have a pretty clear idea on how to do that so the local interface should
just be a plug in teh
Hi,
First of all, thanks for the contribution. Things get done when
people jump in and contribute their time, and we definitely have a
scaling problem we need to fix.
If I understand the implications of your code, I'm very against this
particular solution, as it is a violation of the EJB
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
On 24 Apr 01, at 2:12, David Jencks wrote:
I'm still hoping for more good, specific, real world examples of rule
engine use.
Hi David,
I haven't had a chance to try your rule engine yet but I'm excited
about this type of addition to JBoss. Check out
23 matches
Mail list logo
