On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 20:08, David Jencks wrote:
I don't yet understand what problem you are trying to solve. The problem I
know of with the current deployment set up and LoaderRepositories is that
the only package type you can specify a LoaderRepsository in is an .ear.
This however is easy
Using JDK1.4.1 on windows a clean checkout of Branch_3_2 the management
module fails
to build with the following error.
Regards
Jonas Partner
[javac] Compiling 161 source files to
C:\CVS-modules\manual\try2\jboss-3.2\m
anagement\output\classes
Here are the diff for you to look at, without beeing ment as the final
versions:
First for mx loading:
Common subdirectories:
/home/pra/src/rw/jboss-versions/3.0.x/ro/jboss-3.0/jmx/src/main/org/jboss/mx/loading/CVS
and ./CVS
diff -u -N
=
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS=
=
JAVA VERSION DETAILS
java version 1.4.1_01
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard
On 2003.02.19 03:43 Peter Antman wrote:
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 20:08, David Jencks wrote:
I don't yet understand what problem you are trying to solve. The
problem I
know of with the current deployment set up and LoaderRepositories is
that
the only package type you can specify a
You may be getting that error if the jboss-jsr77.jar is on Ant's classpath
at the time the delete task is run. Ant will not delete a jar it finds on
the classpath. I've noticed this behaviour in other projects, not sure if
it's the case here, but it's certainly worth a look.
Dustin
I think
What you implemented is fine. My only problem with it is that I
think it is more logical to let the server decide if it needs the
tx, and that I think the registration callback could be avoided
(with minimal redundant client side bookkeeping) even if the
decision is made on the server side.
Feature Requests item #689313, was opened at 2003-02-19 15:03
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376688aid=689313group_id=22866
Category: JBossCX
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Barney Rubble (verilet)
On 2003.02.19 09:37 Bill Burke wrote:
What you implemented is fine. My only problem with it is that I
think it is more logical to let the server decide if it needs the
tx, and that I think the registration callback could be avoided
(with minimal redundant client side bookkeeping) even if
ons 2003-02-19 klockan 15.09 skrev David Jencks:
On 2003.02.19 03:43 Peter Antman wrote:
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 20:08, David Jencks wrote:
I don't yet understand what problem you are trying to solve. The
problem I
know of with the current deployment set up and LoaderRepositories is
simplify :)
marcf
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Peter Antman
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Dependant classloader repository
ons 2003-02-19 klockan 15.09 skrev
Bugs item #689562, was opened at 2003-02-19 20:22
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=689562group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: James Higginbotham (jwhigginbotham)
Woo hoo!! Thanks! This looks great!!!
Will you guys mind if I fix minor oversights I notice (such as making
handler names consistently upper case in ServerInvoker)?
Partly so I don't forget and partly to think out loud as I read the code,
here are my initial comments:
1. There's kind of an
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1042
Successful tests: 1040
Errors:1
Failures: 1
[time of test: 2003-02-19.12-05 GMT]
[java.version:
My comments inline with JGH. I haven't really done much documentation
on this yet, which is what I wanted to do in the next few days or so. I
just wanted to get the initial codebase committed so we can have the
benefit of others looking at it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bugs item #686739, was opened at 2003-02-14 12:35
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=686739group_id=22866
Category: Build System
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Bernie Wing (wingba)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #689653, was opened at 2003-02-19 23:10
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=689653group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Muruga Chinnananchi (muruga)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #689653, was opened at 2003-02-19 23:10
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=689653group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Muruga Chinnananchi (muruga)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #689653, was opened at 2003-02-19 23:10
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=689653group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Muruga Chinnananchi (muruga)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #689653, was opened at 2003-02-19 23:10
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=689653group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Muruga Chinnananchi (muruga)
Assigned to:
Hi,
I don't know if this is obvious and I am treading old ground or makes
sense or not, but given that JMX remoting already works, if one creates
a Java proxy to an MBean via MBeanProxy and that Proxy instance gets
shipped through the Remoting infrastructure, wouldn't it make sense to
make
yes
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Anatoly Akkerman wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is obvious and I am treading old ground or makes
sense or not, but given that JMX remoting already works, if one creates
a Java proxy to an MBean via MBeanProxy and that Proxy instance gets
shipped through the
Bugs item #673371, was opened at 2003-01-23 21:32
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=673371group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: CVS HEAD
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Frank Langelage (lafr)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #682618, was opened at 2003-02-07 22:54
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=682618group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: v4.0
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 7
Submitted By: Matthew Munz (mattmunz)
Assigned to: David Jencks
Bugs item #689653, was opened at 2003-02-19 15:10
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=689653group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.2
Status: Closed
Resolution: Wont Fix
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Muruga Chinnananchi (muruga)
Assigned to:
Patches item #689860, was opened at 2003-02-20 07:56
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376687aid=689860group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Gabriele Garuglieri (ggaru)
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1105
Successful tests: 1099
Errors:6
Failures: 0
[time of test: 2003-02-20.06-24 GMT]
[java.version:
27 matches
Mail list logo
