Hi,
just curious: will this work with a scoped ear-deployer. How are EJBS:
deployed from within a scoped ear-deployer made available to the servlet
classloader? With WebService this was done through addClassLoader(), but
how is it done in this servlet aproach?
//Peter
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at
On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 16:52, James Cooley wrote:
Hi Peter,
This was not a requirement for the servlet and I haven't included it -
see previous mails. Scott is deciding how we will integrate the servlet
into the JBoss startup script and retire the WebService. He might best
explain how
I'm getting a bunch of these errors while building
fresh checkout of jboss-mx from HEAD. Anyone have any ideas?
[execmodules]
C:\cvs-jboss-head\jboss-mx\jmx\src\main\org\jboss\mx\metadata\JBossXMBean10.java:37:
package org.dom4j does not exist[execmodules] import
jmx/build.xml probably needs to reference dom4j.jar. I just check
out last night at 10 pm with no problems. Did you do an update instead of
a clean checkout? I don't think update grabs thirdparty jars for some
reason.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Title: Message
OK,
this is fixed.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeff HaynieSent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:54
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [JBoss-dev] Jboss-mx errors
i
did a brand new checkout into
Bugs item #690177, was opened at 2003-02-20 18:24
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=690177group_id=22866
Category: JBoss-IDE
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 9
Submitted By: Hans Dockter (hans_d)
Assigned to: Hans
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1043
Successful tests: 1038
Errors:2
Failures: 3
[time of test: 2003-02-21.12-05 GMT]
[java.version:
I've been thinking and should have posted this before. Your design is
fataly flawed when I start applying it to the AOP framework. Your design
assumes that there is a proxy sitting in front of everything. In AOP this
is not the case. If you look at
I'm getting kind of tired of what I find vague complaints without detailed
explanations of the framework in which you think there might be a problem.
I think remote AOP is going to need;
1. some representation of the object you are calling
2. client interceptors. For instance, to get the
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look at the
basics: All client proxies have a dependency on their
corresponsing server side stub. You can't mix a
different proxys and stub types. Therefore it is ok
for a client side interceptor to have a dependency on
the server side interceptor.
Can
I think AOP has a separate functional requirement from Remoting and
should be separated.
Remoting depends (potentially) on AOP.
AOP should be the instrumenting, invocation and interception framework.
Remoting should then add any semantics for transport and discovery.
Individual subsystems
I personally don't think AOP should have anything related to
transactions, remoting, etc. I think that should be pushed up into the
functional areas that apply those specific semantics to the subsystems
since they are quite different depending on the subsystem (JMS, EJB,
etc) and location
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look at the
Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it otherwise you won't be
talking about where and how tx or remoting should go into AOP.
Maybe I'm missing something.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill
Burke
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003
Whoops, forgot to send this too.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Jencks
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I'm getting kind of tired
I would like to note that my future plans for this involve method specific
interceptor chains with a variety of client side and server side tx
interceptors, each one performing half of the TxSupport work. No maps,
just different specialized interceptors, with different interceptors per
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ole
Husgaard
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really good
The OTS policy only supports the equivalents of never,
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look at
the
basics: All client proxies have a dependency on
their
corresponsing server side stub. You can't mix a
Yes, obviously, but the old tx client proxy just
stuffed the tx context in
Orthoganal problem. The ability to have smarter
Thanks. Sorry for this. +1 Guiness for me ;-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jeremy Boynes
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] (no subject)
This should be fixed now.
--- Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to note that my future plans for this
involve method specific
interceptor chains with a variety of client side
and server side tx
interceptors, each one performing half of the
TxSupport work. No maps,
just different specialized
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
Haynie
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it otherwise you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look at
the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
--- Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would
Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR against what David is
saying. I'm merely saying you should separate the concerns - but it
seems like that is obvious and redudant (although not so apparent with
all the back in forth) to you.
As you know, I don't work for Jboss Group. I'm just merely
--- Bill Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This might sound a little crazy... but how about
allowing multiple server-side interceptor stacks
per
object? One for local access, one for stuff over
IIOP
(that does tx the ots way), one for stuff over
JRMP
etc.
In the long run,
I'm working on fixing the exception tests and I have run into a problem
with the verifier. I am getting the following warning that is causing
the deployment to fail:
Bean : ExceptionTesterEJB
Method : public abstract void ejbExceptionInStore() throws Exception
Section: 7.10.7
Warning: The
=
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS=
=
JAVA VERSION DETAILS
java version 1.3.1_06
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard
Only RemoteException or its subclasses should be flagged as errors. There
is nothing wrong with a local interface throwing a checked Exception.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: Dain
On 2003.02.21 18:58 Bill Burke wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
---
Jeff,
Don't let these guys push you around. Bill's just in a pissy mood
today.
-dain
On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 06:01 PM, Jeff Haynie wrote:
Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR against what David is
saying. I'm merely saying you should separate the concerns - but it
seems like
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1102
Successful tests: 1095
Errors:7
Failures: 0
[time of test: 2003-02-22.02-24 GMT]
[java.version:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
Haynie
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR against what
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Jencks
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is still the best thing
since sliced bread
On 2003.02.21 18:58 Bill Burke
33 matches
Mail list logo
