[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-709559 ] Bogus http session handling(?)
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 Category: JBossWeb Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bogus http session handling(?) Initial Comment: browser calls the "root-url" http://localhost:8080/session-test there the welcome-file directive kicks in and uses simple.jsp this one has only one line: loginservlet looks at the session, decides if it is old or new and offers a form that after posting returns to /loginservlet On Bea WLS 6.1sp2 I see the behaviour, which I think is correct: the first call to the servlet gets a session isNew() on the session gives true: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: true encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 The next call sees the same session id and as expcected, isNew()==false: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: false encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 On JBoss 3.2.0RC4 this looks like this: First request is ok wrt. isNew()==true New request: 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] session is not null, id: dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] isNew() gives: true 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] Second request to url http://localhost:8080/session-test/loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFy Kx9WQ** (jsessionid is encurl from previous request, so ok.) New request: 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] session is null, creating new session 15:46:00,248 ERROR [SubscribingInterceptor] could not get AbstractReplicatedStore 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] it has id: JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** 15:46:00,258 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** Here the session is null, and thus a new session is created.. -- >Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 09:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 This is with JBoss 3.20RC4/Jetty -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-709559 ] Bogus http session handling(?)
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 Category: JBossWeb Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bogus http session handling(?) Initial Comment: browser calls the "root-url" http://localhost:8080/session-test there the welcome-file directive kicks in and uses simple.jsp this one has only one line: loginservlet looks at the session, decides if it is old or new and offers a form that after posting returns to /loginservlet On Bea WLS 6.1sp2 I see the behaviour, which I think is correct: the first call to the servlet gets a session isNew() on the session gives true: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: true encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 The next call sees the same session id and as expcected, isNew()==false: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: false encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 On JBoss 3.2.0RC4 this looks like this: First request is ok wrt. isNew()==true New request: 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] session is not null, id: dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] isNew() gives: true 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] Second request to url http://localhost:8080/session-test/loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFy Kx9WQ** (jsessionid is encurl from previous request, so ok.) New request: 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] session is null, creating new session 15:46:00,248 ERROR [SubscribingInterceptor] could not get AbstractReplicatedStore 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] it has id: JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** 15:46:00,258 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** Here the session is null, and thus a new session is created.. -- >Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 10:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 The same applies to 3.0.6/Jetty -- Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 09:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 This is with JBoss 3.20RC4/Jetty -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] Earn Good Money $$ Giving Away Computers!
ONLY One-time $99. State-of-the-art Business and Computer Training. Personalized Marketing System. Outstanding Multiple Income Stream Pay Plans Assure You Unlimited Income. This Program Supports Any Opportunity, Or Can Be Used as Your Only Business. Plus Everyone who joins gets a FREE Rewards Bonus package worth in excess of $25,000 which includes a FREE computer and tons more stuff! Take just minutes to see how this opportunity can change your life! For FREE, NO obligation information, complete the FORM below. and put "Code D-1334" in the subject line and send it to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Name:___required Phone:__required Best Time To Call:__ Yours in PROSPERITY! If you feel this reach you in error and wish to be removed, please click below and send. SORRY for the inconvenience. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-709559 ] Bogus http session handling(?)
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 Category: JBossWeb Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bogus http session handling(?) Initial Comment: browser calls the "root-url" http://localhost:8080/session-test there the welcome-file directive kicks in and uses simple.jsp this one has only one line: loginservlet looks at the session, decides if it is old or new and offers a form that after posting returns to /loginservlet On Bea WLS 6.1sp2 I see the behaviour, which I think is correct: the first call to the servlet gets a session isNew() on the session gives true: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: true encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 The next call sees the same session id and as expcected, isNew()==false: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: false encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 On JBoss 3.2.0RC4 this looks like this: First request is ok wrt. isNew()==true New request: 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] session is not null, id: dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] isNew() gives: true 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] Second request to url http://localhost:8080/session-test/loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFy Kx9WQ** (jsessionid is encurl from previous request, so ok.) New request: 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] session is null, creating new session 15:46:00,248 ERROR [SubscribingInterceptor] could not get AbstractReplicatedStore 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] it has id: JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** 15:46:00,258 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** Here the session is null, and thus a new session is created.. -- >Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 10:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 JBoss 3.0.5/tomcat-4.0.6 behaves as expected and like Bea does. So it is 2:1 against jetty here :-) -- Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 10:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 The same applies to 3.0.6/Jetty -- Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 09:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 This is with JBoss 3.20RC4/Jetty -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed
Hi, Yep - tried with and without... but you'd think it would be consistent if that was the problem - ant would either have enough memory or not... Thanks, Chris --- Stephen Coy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you tried the equivalent of this sort of thing in your script? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] jboss-3.2]$ ANT_OPTS="-Xmx256M" build/build.sh > > Steve Coy > > On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 01:11 AM, Chris Kimpton wrote: > > > > > --- Chris Kimpton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Does anyone get problems compiling HEAD on Linux - > >> > >>> Caused by: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError > >> > >> Within the doclet stuff... > >> > > > > This seems to be my problem - since I can compile it manually > outside > > of my scripts... but all they do is one shell script calls > another > > script which calls build.sh... Is there some default "sh" memory > > limits that are limiting things? > > > > I will look at getting a windows version running and probably > > re-writing my scripts since they are getting out of hand... > > > > But basically - the regular compiles are currently stopped! > > > > Chris > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development = __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] WEBDAV deployment
Feature Requests item #710007, was opened at 2003-03-26 15:14 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376688&aid=710007&group_id=22866 Category: JBossServer Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Igor A. Karpov (ikar) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: WEBDAV deployment Initial Comment: currectly there's some support for WebDAV in JBoss. Namely, packed archives (*.war, *.sar, *.ear) can be detected on WebDAV-enabled sites and deployed. The point is that Unpacked archives are detected but cannot be deployed; the automatic deployment of Unpacked archives would be the best option for me. I would even develop this functionality, just need a hint where to start from. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376688&aid=710007&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP
You have read/write correct? Javassist may not be creating the correct throws clauses. Can you add a test for this under the testsuite and under aop/? I will look at it after I finish my other aop work I'm doing. Bill > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Igor > Fedorenko > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sourceforge. Net (E-mail) > Subject: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP > > > Hi, > > I am playing around with AOP and I want to know if I am doing > something wrong. What I basically want is to add additional > behaviour to an EJB implementation. The problem is, deployment of > EJB fails with verifier errors (violation of sections 7.10.6, > 7.10.7 and 7.10.8, something about exceptions thrown by > implementation not being matched by declared by home/remote > interfaces). The very same EJB deploys fine without aspects. Any idea? > > Igor Fedorenko > Think smart. Think automated. Think Dynamics. > www.thinkdynamics.com > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] WEBDAV deployment
I guess this is a question for Jeremy Boynes. Nevertheless, I think to remember that being able to have this would also mean fixing some classloading behaviour in Jasper. Cheers, Sacha > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of SourceForge.net > Sent: mercredi, 26. mars 2003 13:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] WEBDAV > deployment > > > Feature Requests item #710007, was opened at 2003-03-26 15:14 > You can respond by visiting: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376688&aid=7 10007&group_id=22866 Category: JBossServer Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Igor A. Karpov (ikar) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: WEBDAV deployment Initial Comment: currectly there's some support for WebDAV in JBoss. Namely, packed archives (*.war, *.sar, *.ear) can be detected on WebDAV-enabled sites and deployed. The point is that Unpacked archives are detected but cannot be deployed; the automatic deployment of Unpacked archives would be the best option for me. I would even develop this functionality, just need a hint where to start from. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376688&aid=710007&group_id =22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] WEBDAV deployment
I just posted a reply in the tracker, and bounced him to you for RussianDoll issues - tag :-) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Sacha Labourey > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:02 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] > WEBDAV deployment > > > I guess this is a question for Jeremy Boynes. Nevertheless, I > think to remember that being able to have this would also > mean fixing some classloading behaviour in Jasper. > > Cheers, > > > Sacha > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of SourceForge.net > > Sent: mercredi, 26. mars 2003 13:15 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] WEBDAV > > deployment > > > > > > Feature Requests item #710007, was opened at 2003-03-26 > 15:14 You can > > respond by visiting: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376688&aid=7 > 10007&group_id=22866 > > Category: JBossServer > Group: v3.2 > Status: Open > Resolution: None > Priority: 5 > Submitted By: Igor A. Karpov (ikar) > Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) > Summary: WEBDAV deployment > > Initial Comment: > currectly there's some support for WebDAV in JBoss. > Namely, packed archives (*.war, *.sar, *.ear) can be > detected on WebDAV-enabled sites and deployed. > The point is that Unpacked archives are detected but > cannot be deployed; the automatic deployment of > Unpacked archives would be the best option for me. > I would even develop this functionality, just need a > hint where to start from. > > -- > > You can respond by visiting: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376688&aid=7 10007&group_id =22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-709559 ] Bogus http session handling(?)
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 Category: JBossWeb Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Bogus http session handling(?) Initial Comment: browser calls the "root-url" http://localhost:8080/session-test there the welcome-file directive kicks in and uses simple.jsp this one has only one line: loginservlet looks at the session, decides if it is old or new and offers a form that after posting returns to /loginservlet On Bea WLS 6.1sp2 I see the behaviour, which I think is correct: the first call to the servlet gets a session isNew() on the session gives true: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: true encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 The next call sees the same session id and as expcected, isNew()==false: New request: session is not null, id: 2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3!920521618!-1062706052!7 001!7002!1048603266595 isNew() gives: false encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=2AqCdn2Gn8UKNSbtNwgxDIJkSO7mFUE3CWxpsQe4UOk5dsbZqzt3 !920521618!-1062706052!7001!7002 On JBoss 3.2.0RC4 this looks like this: First request is ok wrt. isNew()==true New request: 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] session is not null, id: dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] isNew() gives: true 15:45:43,083 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFyKx9WQ** 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] Second request to url http://localhost:8080/session-test/loginservlet;jsessionid=dbf09fGSqkOGJLjFy Kx9WQ** (jsessionid is encurl from previous request, so ok.) New request: 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] session is null, creating new session 15:46:00,248 ERROR [SubscribingInterceptor] could not get AbstractReplicatedStore 15:46:00,248 INFO [STDOUT] it has id: JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** 15:46:00,258 INFO [STDOUT] encUrl is loginservlet;jsessionid=JHIZDgbRHa9LIzJRGyElBw** Here the session is null, and thus a new session is created.. -- >Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 16:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 Jules Gosnell writes: - you've declared your webapp as distributed and ignored the message that Jetty gave you on startup about not being able to provide distributed session management (probably becaise you are running 'default' not 'all' - this one is also in the FAQ, I believe). No doubt you are using xdoclet to produce your web.xml - unfortunately it defaults to declaring all webapps distributable. You will need to set distributable="false" in your build.xml So, this probably should go into admin&dev manual as well as quick-start guide. -- Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 10:40 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 JBoss 3.0.5/tomcat-4.0.6 behaves as expected and like Bea does. So it is 2:1 against jetty here :-) -- Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 10:19 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 The same applies to 3.0.6/Jetty -- Comment By: Heiko W.Rupp (pilhuhn) Date: 2003-03-26 09:38 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=217112 This is with JBoss 3.20RC4/Jetty -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=709559&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] Eclipse does not read $CVSROOT/cvsignore
Hi, .cvsignore file were recently removed from HEAD and replaced with global $CVSROOT/cvsignore file. Unfortunately, Eclipse does not read $CVSROOT/cvsignore and shows all /output directories as outgoing changes. Will anybody mind if I put .cvsignore files back? Igor Fedorenko Think smart. Think automated. Think Dynamics. www.thinkdynamics.com --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-710149 ] Patch request for DestinationManager class
Bugs item #710149, was opened at 2003-03-26 16:41 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710149&group_id=22866 Category: JBossMQ Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Rod Burgett (rodburgett) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Patch request for DestinationManager class Initial Comment: We'd like to extend the org.jboss.mq.server.jmx.DestinationManager.java class. This is complicated by a lack of protected methods in the class. No changes are requested to how the class operates, only to extend-abililty. The attached diff files update getTopicObjectName and getQueueObjectName methods for protected visibility, instead of private, and add a protected accessor method for the ServiceControllerMBean. Essentially the same patch is requested for JBoss v3.0 and v3.2. Different patch files are attached because the class was updated for 3.2. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710149&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-710149 ] Patch request for DestinationManager class
Bugs item #710149, was opened at 2003-03-26 16:41 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710149&group_id=22866 Category: JBossMQ Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Rod Burgett (rodburgett) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Patch request for DestinationManager class Initial Comment: We'd like to extend the org.jboss.mq.server.jmx.DestinationManager.java class. This is complicated by a lack of protected methods in the class. No changes are requested to how the class operates, only to extend-abililty. The attached diff files update getTopicObjectName and getQueueObjectName methods for protected visibility, instead of private, and add a protected accessor method for the ServiceControllerMBean. Essentially the same patch is requested for JBoss v3.0 and v3.2. Different patch files are attached because the class was updated for 3.2. -- >Comment By: Rod Burgett (rodburgett) Date: 2003-03-26 16:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=681969 Adding diff attachment for v3.0. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710149&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP
> You have read/write correct? I guess that was exactly what I wanted to know ;-) > Javassist may not be creating the correct > throws clauses. Can you add a test for this under the > testsuite and under > aop/? I will look at it after I finish my other aop work I'm doing. Done. Added .../aop/simpleejb/SimpleBean.java EJB, SimpleBeanInterceptor/Factory that intercepts SimpleBean methods and SimpleBeanUnitTestCase that fails to deploy that EJB. Note that the same EJB can be deployed successfully without interceptors. Btw, is there a separate target for running AOP unit tests? I had to run run-db-tests which seems to be too wide. > > Bill > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Igor > > Fedorenko > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:44 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sourceforge. Net (E-mail) > > Subject: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am playing around with AOP and I want to know if I am doing > > something wrong. What I basically want is to add additional > > behaviour to an EJB implementation. The problem is, deployment of > > EJB fails with verifier errors (violation of sections 7.10.6, > > 7.10.7 and 7.10.8, something about exceptions thrown by > > implementation not being matched by declared by home/remote > > interfaces). The very same EJB deploys fine without > aspects. Any idea? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Igor > Fedorenko > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP > > > > You have read/write correct? > I guess that was exactly what I wanted to know ;-) > > > Javassist may not be creating the correct > > throws clauses. Can you add a test for this under the > > testsuite and under > > aop/? I will look at it after I finish my other aop work I'm doing. > Done. Added .../aop/simpleejb/SimpleBean.java EJB, > SimpleBeanInterceptor/Factory that intercepts SimpleBean methods > and SimpleBeanUnitTestCase that fails to deploy that EJB. Note > that the same EJB can be deployed successfully without interceptors. > > Btw, is there a separate target for running AOP unit tests? I had > to run run-db-tests which seems to be too wide. > build.sh build.sh -Dtest=aop test Will run all aop tests. Thanks BTW! > > > > Bill > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of Igor > > > Fedorenko > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:44 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sourceforge. Net (E-mail) > > > Subject: [JBoss-dev] Trying out AOP > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am playing around with AOP and I want to know if I am doing > > > something wrong. What I basically want is to add additional > > > behaviour to an EJB implementation. The problem is, deployment of > > > EJB fails with verifier errors (violation of sections 7.10.6, > > > 7.10.7 and 7.10.8, something about exceptions thrown by > > > implementation not being matched by declared by home/remote > > > interfaces). The very same EJB deploys fine without > > aspects. Any idea? > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-710204 ] ra.xml does not pass validation
Bugs item #710204, was opened at 2003-03-26 10:05 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710204&group_id=22866 Category: None Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Han Ming ONG (hanming) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: ra.xml does not pass validation Initial Comment: If you check out jboss-3.2 HEAD, cd pool/src/resources/xa-rar/META-INF and open ra.xml, you will find that the element is wrong. According to http://java.sun.com/dtd/connector_1_0.dtd , should come after An easy change for David Jencks. Han Ming -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710204&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-707730 ] No error returned while getting Queue factory.
Bugs item #707730, was opened at 2003-03-21 20:58 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=707730&group_id=22866 Category: JBossMQ Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole >Status: Closed >Resolution: Works For Me Priority: 5 Submitted By: Michal Hobot (hobot) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: No error returned while getting Queue factory. Initial Comment: The error I found is quite strange and it took me a while to localize. One of part of my application is separate Java program, working as JBoss client. This program grabs data from external source and put it into JBoss queue, where it is consumed by messaging beans. I found one problem: in some circumstances, my client application can bind to not-running JBoss successfuly and send messages! Of course those messages are lost. Problem is (I think) inside some networking module. When program requests QueueConnectionFactory from JNDI, I can see stack trace and error messages in log, but no Exception is thrown and returned QueueConnectionFactory is not null. I can then get queue, start it and send data to it. All of that without JBoss running! Stranges thing is: the problem occurs only when my app tries to connect to MS Windows box. When it connects to other machine (I tried Linux, SCO Unix and HP/UX) - everything is OK, exception is thrown when getting QueueConnectionFactory. I tried to connect to localhost and foreign machines - it doesn't matter. Only OS of machine I'm trying to connect to seems to matter. I used Sun JDK 1.4. For me, the problem is severe since messages my program sends contains sensitive information and because of bug there is a chance some messages will be lost when server would be down and client would run. Michal Hobot -- Comment By: Igor Fedorenko (igorfie) Date: 2003-03-21 21:52 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=232950 Did you try adding jnp.disableDiscovery=true to your jndi.properties? I had pretty weird problem when my client was trying to conncect to somebody else's JBoss ;-) -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=707730&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-710396 ] Deployed .war unaccessible in Tomcat 4.1
Bugs item #710396, was opened at 2003-03-26 15:09 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710396&group_id=22866 Category: CatalinaBundle Group: v3.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stefan Reich (sreich) Assigned to: Scott M Stark (starksm) Summary: Deployed .war unaccessible in Tomcat 4.1 Initial Comment: Platform MacOSX 10.2.4, JDK 1.4.1, Jboss 3.2 latest CVS, Tomcat 4.1.24 (and 4.1.18). Some recent change broke tomcat deployment. Although there is no error during the deployment, the servlet can't be accessed. To reproduce try to access jmx-console. -- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=710396&group_id=22866 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, Versioned Objects. You can transactionally version an object. If you modify the object within a transaction, this modification is not seen by other transactions. If the tx commits, the changes seen, if a rollback happens the changes are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has modified the object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). The way it works is as follows: POJO pojo = new POJO(); pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in front of the real object. transactionManager.begin(); pojo.callMethod(); when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an interceptor creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all further invocations on this copy. pojo.someField = 5; If you have field interception turned on, public field will also be accessed via the copy/version tm.commit(); On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version you have created is the latest and greatest. If not an org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is thrown in beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception is wrapped. Some other semantics: 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You can avoid this by declared class-metadata as follows: true A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version and the current object will be used. An example and unit test is under testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor pointcut declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock interceptor for versioned POJO's that have high OptimisticLock failures. Bill --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
I just want to give credit to Julien Viet as well who pitched that idea when he was in ATL, kudos Bill, you are in orbit, the pings in your head, the code in CVS, let them fight, let's move marcf > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bill Burke > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:09 PM > To: Jboss-Dev > Subject: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, > Versioned Objects. You can transactionally version an > object. If you modify the object within a transaction, this > modification is not seen by other transactions. If the tx > commits, the changes seen, if a rollback happens the changes > are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has modified the > object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). > > The way it works is as follows: > > POJO pojo = new POJO(); > pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); > > calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in > front of the real object. > > transactionManager.begin(); > > pojo.callMethod(); > > when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an > interceptor creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all > further invocations on this copy. > > pojo.someField = 5; > > If you have field interception turned on, public field will > also be accessed via the copy/version > > tm.commit(); > > On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version > you have created is the latest and greatest. If not an > org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is > thrown in beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception > is wrapped. > > Some other semantics: > > 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You > can avoid this by declared class-metadata as follows: > > class="org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO"> > > true > > > > A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version > and the current object will be used. > > > An example and unit test is under > testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java > > The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor > pointcut declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See > testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. > > What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock > interceptor for versioned POJO's that have high > OptimisticLock failures. > > Bill > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
do you motherfuckers realize how BIG this is? no? there is close to NOTHING in 20,000 pages of J2EE about this. marcf > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bill Burke > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:09 PM > To: Jboss-Dev > Subject: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, > Versioned Objects. You can transactionally version an > object. If you modify the object within a transaction, this > modification is not seen by other transactions. If the tx > commits, the changes seen, if a rollback happens the changes > are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has modified the > object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). > > The way it works is as follows: > > POJO pojo = new POJO(); > pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); > > calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in > front of the real object. > > transactionManager.begin(); > > pojo.callMethod(); > > when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an > interceptor creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all > further invocations on this copy. > > pojo.someField = 5; > > If you have field interception turned on, public field will > also be accessed via the copy/version > > tm.commit(); > > On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version > you have created is the latest and greatest. If not an > org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is > thrown in beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception > is wrapped. > > Some other semantics: > > 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You > can avoid this by declared class-metadata as follows: > > class="org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO"> > > true > > > > A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version > and the current object will be used. > > > An example and unit test is under > testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java > > The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor > pointcut declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See > testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. > > What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock > interceptor for versioned POJO's that have high > OptimisticLock failures. > > Bill > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
second revolution, I just can't say how excited I am. We are doing magic, critical mass. Julien goes "I got a silly idea.." bill makes it real, there is war.. we are doing RAW stuff, and rarely was I that excited about it all... you ain't seen nothing yet wankers PLgC marcf > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bill Burke > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:09 PM > To: Jboss-Dev > Subject: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, > Versioned Objects. You can transactionally version an > object. If you modify the object within a transaction, this > modification is not seen by other transactions. If the tx > commits, the changes seen, if a rollback happens the changes > are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has modified the > object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). > > The way it works is as follows: > > POJO pojo = new POJO(); > pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); > > calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in > front of the real object. > > transactionManager.begin(); > > pojo.callMethod(); > > when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an > interceptor creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all > further invocations on this copy. > > pojo.someField = 5; > > If you have field interception turned on, public field will > also be accessed via the copy/version > > tm.commit(); > > On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version > you have created is the latest and greatest. If not an > org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is > thrown in beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception > is wrapped. > > Some other semantics: > > 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You > can avoid this by declared class-metadata as follows: > > class="org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO"> > > true > > > > A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version > and the current object will be used. > > > An example and unit test is under > testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java > > The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor > pointcut declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See > testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. > > What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock > interceptor for versioned POJO's that have high > OptimisticLock failures. > > Bill > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
[JBoss-dev] Verify primary key implements equals and hashCode
After some email with Bill, it looks like we can use
Class.getDeclaredMethods to find which method the class implements (you
learn something new every day). It specifically excludes inherited
methods, so we can use it to verify if a primary key has actually
implemented hashCode and equals.
Since equals equals is not really inheritable (see Effective Java), I
think we should throw a verifier error if a pk does not directly
implement it. HashCode on the other hand can be inherited (and still
be valid), so I think we should only print a warning if they don't
directly. We could check the parents until we get to Object to see if
they left the default implementation.
Who maintains the verifier?
-dain
Here is the code I wrote in to test this:
public static boolean definesEquals(Class clazz)
{
Method[] method = clazz.getDeclaredMethods();
for(int i=0; i
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
Too bad that the whole world is more intretsed whether or not JBOSS will become J2EE certified. I was reading an article about Unintended Consequences that made me think of the current J2EE cerification vs. JBOSS 4.0 with AOP. In 1349 the black plague was spreading around Europe. In castles and universities and town halls across Europe, great minds pondered the cause of the plague. And they came pretty close. The collective academic wisdom was that the source of the Black Plague was fleas. So the word went out from town to town across Europe - to stop the plague - kill the fleas - by killing all the dogs. And immediately the slaughter of all dogs began. But like lots of well-intentioned academic ideas it was somewhat wide of the mark...and had unexpected consequences. The cause was fleas all right, but not dog fleas...it was rat fleas. And in the 1300's what was the most effective way to hold down the rat population? You guessed it - dogs. So by suggesting that townsfolk kill their dogs, the wise authorities had unwittingly allowed the rat population to flourish and thus a new vicious rash of Black Plague began. Before it was over, three years later, nearly 1 out of 3 people in the world had died of the plague. (John Mauldin) So in the quest to impove J2EE have you killed it? marc fleury wrote: do you motherfuckers realize how BIG this is? no? there is close to NOTHING in 20,000 pages of J2EE about this. marcf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Burke Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:09 PM To: Jboss-Dev Subject: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, Versioned Objects. You can transactionally version an object. If you modify the object within a transaction, this modification is not seen by other transactions. If the tx commits, the changes seen, if a rollback happens the changes are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has modified the object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). The way it works is as follows: POJO pojo = new POJO(); pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in front of the real object. transactionManager.begin(); pojo.callMethod(); when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an interceptor creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all further invocations on this copy. pojo.someField = 5; If you have field interception turned on, public field will also be accessed via the copy/version tm.commit(); On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version you have created is the latest and greatest. If not an org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is thrown in beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception is wrapped. Some other semantics: 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You can avoid this by declared class-metadata as follows: true A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version and the current object will be used. An example and unit test is under testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor pointcut declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock interceptor for versioned POJO's that have high OptimisticLock failures. Bill --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
> So in the quest to impove J2EE have you killed it? bla bla bla bla > marc fleury wrote: > > >do you motherfuckers realize how BIG this is? obviously some of you don't get it, give it time, it will become very obvious enough wasted time in the U.N. Time for some good ol' action marcf --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
The story about the flees was pretty good though, but kind of irrelevant :) marcf > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of marc fleury > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > So in the quest to impove J2EE have you killed it? > > bla bla bla bla > > > marc fleury wrote: > > > > >do you motherfuckers realize how BIG this is? > > obviously some of you don't get it, give it time, it will > become very obvious > > enough wasted time in the U.N. Time for some good ol' action > > marcf > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
:rotfl .. a Frenchman wanting action This is hot shit. Plain and simple. Take the J2EE spec and piss all over it. When you wrote it your mind was small and feeble, we have seen the light. The question is how long before the world realizes it or does J2EE implode and we all are paying homage to Bill and .NET May God Bless America and Java. marc fleury wrote: So in the quest to impove J2EE have you killed it? bla bla bla bla marc fleury wrote: do you motherfuckers realize how BIG this is? obviously some of you don't get it, give it time, it will become very obvious enough wasted time in the U.N. Time for some good ol' action marcf --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
Dave, Think about this. If we wait for the spec to implement the kind of stuff dot net is doing, J2EE is dead anyhow. At 10K per CPU J2EE is dead as well. We are moving to a commodity based infrastructure, dot net can play so can open source and IBM. Not sure too many others can join the ride. Realize that we are saving Java not destroying it. More people download JBoss than the reference implementation. Ben Sabrin Director of Sales and Business Development JBoss Group, LLC 404-467-8555 x202 - office 404-664-9466 - cell 404-948-1496 - fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:jboss- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Smith > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > :rotfl .. a Frenchman wanting action > > This is hot shit. Plain and simple. Take the J2EE spec and piss all over > it. When you wrote it your mind was small and feeble, we have seen the > light. > The question is how long before the world realizes it or does J2EE > implode and we all are paying homage to Bill and .NET > > May God Bless America and Java. > > > marc fleury wrote: > > >>So in the quest to impove J2EE have you killed it? > >> > >> > > > >bla bla bla bla > > > > > > > >>marc fleury wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>do you motherfuckers realize how BIG this is? > >>> > >>> > > > >obviously some of you don't get it, give it time, it will become very > >obvious > > > >enough wasted time in the U.N. Time for some good ol' action > > > >marcf > > > > > > > >--- > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: > >The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > >NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > >http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > >___ > >Jboss-development mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] Verify primary key implements equals and hashCode
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
After some email with Bill, it looks like we can use
Class.getDeclaredMethods to find which method the class implements
(you learn something new every day). It specifically excludes
inherited methods, so we can use it to verify if a primary key has
actually implemented hashCode and equals.
Class.getDeclaredMethod("equals", new Class[] { Object.class }) should
also do the trick and won't return inherited methods.
Since equals equals is not really inheritable (see Effective Java), I
think we should throw a verifier error if a pk does not directly
implement it.
I haven't read Effective Java, but this won't work for us. We
intentionally create derived primary key classes for each entity. These
are derived from generic pk classes when the primary key data is a
simple primative type. The super class implements equals, compareTo and
hashCode. I don't see any reason these would need to be reimplemented in
each derived class.
The purpose of the derived classes is primarly for type safety.
HashCode on the other hand can be inherited (and still be valid), so I
think we should only print a warning if they don't directly. We could
check the parents until we get to Object to see if they left the
default implementation.
Who maintains the verifier?
-dain
Here is the code I wrote in to test this:
public static boolean definesEquals(Class clazz)
{
Method[] method = clazz.getDeclaredMethods();
for(int i=0; i
{
if(method[i].getName().equals("equals") &&
method[i].getParameterTypes().length == 1 &&
method[i].getParameterTypes()[0] == Object.class &&
method[i].getReturnType() == Boolean.TYPE)
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
How about: (off the cuff and untested)
public static boolean definesEquals(Class clazz)
{
Class[] params = new Class[] { Object.class };
while (clazz != null && !clazz.equals(Object.class)) {
try {
Method m = clazz.getDeclaredMethod("equals", params);
if (m.getReturnType() == Integer.TYPE)
return true;
} catch (NoSuchMethodException) {
}
clazz = clazz.getSuperclass();
}
return false;
}
--Victor Langelo
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave > Smith > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > Too bad that the whole world is more intretsed whether or not JBOSS will > become J2EE certified. > > I was reading an article about Unintended Consequences that made me > think of the current J2EE cerification vs. JBOSS 4.0 with AOP. > > In 1349 the black plague was spreading around Europe. In castles and > universities and town halls across Europe, great minds pondered the > cause of the plague. > And they came pretty close. The collective academic wisdom was that the > source of the Black Plague was fleas. > > So the word went out from town to town across Europe - to stop the > plague - kill the fleas - by killing all the dogs. And immediately the > slaughter of all dogs began. > > But like lots of well-intentioned academic ideas it was somewhat wide of > the mark...and had unexpected consequences. The cause was > fleas all right, but not dog fleas...it was rat fleas. And in the 1300's > what was the most effective way to hold down the rat population? You > guessed it - dogs. > So by suggesting that townsfolk kill their dogs, the wise authorities > had unwittingly allowed the rat population to flourish and thus a new > vicious rash of Black Plague began. > Before it was over, three years later, nearly 1 out of 3 people in the > world had died of the plague. (John Mauldin) > > So in the quest to impove J2EE have you killed it? > "Pope Paul V ordered Bellarmine to have the Sacred Congregation of the Index decide on the Copernican theory. The cardinals of the Inquisition met on 24 February 1616 and took evidence from theological experts. They condemned the teachings of Copernicus, and Bellarmine conveyed their decision to Galileo who had not been personally involved in the trial. Galileo was forbidden to hold Copernican views." Dave, I've participated in the evolution of distributed systems of the past 10 years, DCE, CORBA, and now J2EE implementations. System level aspects are just the next iteration of the same theme. The difference being that the AOP paradigm finally let's you separate your business logic code from your distributed infrastructure. You will see. Everybody will jump on the AOP bandwagon eventually. I'm just glad JBoss is a leader this time rather than being just a J2EE chump follower. Bill --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
Bill, This is fabulous stuff. Good job. Is there a way we might be able to use the AOP xml to dynamically do your example below (as well as the clustered and remoting) for POJOs during construction time? In other words, could you not have an interceptor on a constructor pointcut that would do this for you and dynamically make the class Versionable, Clusterable, Remotable, etc. so that the actual instance you receive back has these capabilities transparently w/o having to programatically do this? The advantages of this would be that you could dynamically modify the POJO from the XML file without having to do it programmatically (of course, you could if you wanted to). That way, we can truly separate the business logic (as an example, no flames here) from the cross-cutting of concerns such as transactibility, security, remoteness, etc. Looking at the jboss-aop.xml in the testsuite - it looks like you're doing this with the Tx Interceptor on the VersionedPOJO - why not just create the VersionedPOJO in the same way and insert the Versioned Interceptor the same way? Is this possible? Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Burke Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:09 PM To: Jboss-Dev Subject: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, Versioned Objects. You can transactionally version an object. If you modify the object within a transaction, this modification is not seen by other transactions. If the tx commits, the changes seen, if a rollback happens the changes are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has modified the object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). The way it works is as follows: POJO pojo = new POJO(); pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in front of the real object. transactionManager.begin(); pojo.callMethod(); when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an interceptor creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all further invocations on this copy. pojo.someField = 5; If you have field interception turned on, public field will also be accessed via the copy/version tm.commit(); On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version you have created is the latest and greatest. If not an org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is thrown in beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception is wrapped. Some other semantics: 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You can avoid this by declared class-metadata as follows: true A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version and the current object will be used. An example and unit test is under testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor pointcut declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock interceptor for versioned POJO's that have high OptimisticLock failures. Bill --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
"Pope Paul V ordered Bellarmine to have the Sacred Congregation of the Index decide on the Copernican theory. The cardinals of the Inquisition met on 24 February 1616 and took evidence from theological experts. They condemned the teachings of Copernicus, and Bellarmine conveyed their decision to Galileo who had not been personally involved in the trial. Galileo was forbidden to hold Copernican views." Dude, that is so funny! I was about to write that exact thing (though less elegantly) and then make some references to the Spanish Inquisition, but then I thought...what's the point... -Andy Dave, I've participated in the evolution of distributed systems of the past 10 years, DCE, CORBA, and now J2EE implementations. System level aspects are just the next iteration of the same theme. The difference being that the AOP paradigm finally let's you separate your business logic code from your distributed infrastructure. You will see. Everybody will jump on the AOP bandwagon eventually. I'm just glad JBoss is a leader this time rather than being just a J2EE chump follower. Bill --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Andrew C. Oliver > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > "Pope Paul V ordered Bellarmine to have the Sacred Congregation > of the Index > > decide on the Copernican theory. The cardinals of the > Inquisition met on 24 > > February 1616 and took evidence from theological experts. They > condemned the > > teachings of Copernicus, and Bellarmine conveyed their decision > to Galileo > > who had not been personally involved in the trial. Galileo was > forbidden to > > hold Copernican views." > > > > Dude, that is so funny! I was about to write that exact thing (though > less elegantly) and then make some references to the Spanish > Inquisition, but then I thought...what's the point... > Only reason it was written elegantly is that I plagarized it from the web :-0 (BTW, I liked your blog you posted out the other day...) I'd like to add that through each iteration (DCE, CORBA, J2EE, Web Services) I think the industry has learned something. There's a lot JBoss AOP can take from these specifications. Bill > -Andy > > > > Dave, I've participated in the evolution of distributed systems > of the past > > 10 years, DCE, CORBA, and now J2EE implementations. System > level aspects > > are just the next iteration of the same theme. The difference > being that > > the AOP paradigm finally let's you separate your business logic > code from > > your distributed infrastructure. You will see. Everybody will > jump on the > > AOP bandwagon eventually. I'm just glad JBoss is a leader this > time rather > > than being just a J2EE chump follower. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > > ___ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff > Haynie > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > Bill, > > This is fabulous stuff. Good job. > JBoss Remoting is much more fabulous. We need to get the word out on it... > Is there a way we might be able to use the AOP xml to dynamically do > your example below (as well as the clustered and remoting) for POJOs > during construction time? In other words, could you not have an > interceptor on a constructor pointcut that would do this for you and > dynamically make the class Versionable, Clusterable, Remotable, etc. so > that the actual instance you receive back has these capabilities > transparently w/o having to programatically do this? > > The advantages of this would be that you could dynamically modify the > POJO from the XML file without having to do it programmatically (of > course, you could if you wanted to). That way, we can truly separate > the business logic (as an example, no flames here) from the > cross-cutting of concerns such as transactibility, security, remoteness, > etc. > > Looking at the jboss-aop.xml in the testsuite - it looks like you're > doing this with the Tx Interceptor on the VersionedPOJO - why not just > create the VersionedPOJO in the same way and insert the Versioned > Interceptor the same way? Is this possible? > I totally agree. And yes, a constructor pointcut is the way to go. The only downside of constructor pointcuts is that reflection bypasses the interception! Same thing with field interception. The problem is that unlike methods, you have to modify the bytecode of the calling logic. I will write some testcases that put the whole stack together with constructor pointcuts. I'm also working on the concept of an abstract Container. But you got me thinking that constructor pointcuts may be enough... Bill > Jeff > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill > Burke > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:09 PM > To: Jboss-Dev > Subject: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > I have implemented a new AOP service for Serializable POJOs, Versioned > Objects. You can transactionally version an object. If you modify the > object within a transaction, this modification is not seen by other > transactions. If the tx commits, the changes seen, if a rollback > happens the changes are rolled back. On commit, if another tx has > modified the object, the tx will rollback (OptimisticLocking). > > The way it works is as follows: > > POJO pojo = new POJO(); > pojo = (POJO)org.jboss.aop.plugins.Versioned.makeVersioned(pojo); > > calling Versioned.makeVersioned creates a proxy that sits in front of > the real object. > > transactionManager.begin(); > > pojo.callMethod(); > > when callMethod is invoked since there is a transaction, an interceptor > creates a copy of the REAL pojo and does all further invocations on this > copy. > > pojo.someField = 5; > > If you have field interception turned on, public field will also be > accessed via the copy/version > > tm.commit(); > > On commit, a tx Synchronization checks to see if the version you have > created is the latest and greatest. If not an > org.jboss.aop.plugins.OptimisticLockFailure exception is thrown in > beforeCompletion. I'm not sure how this exception is wrapped. > > Some other semantics: > > 1. All method invocations force a version to be created. You can avoid > this by declared class-metadata as follows: > > class="org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO"> > > true > > > > A readonly method will not cause the creation of a version and the > current object will be used. > > > An example and unit test is under > testsuite/src/main/org/jboss/test/aop/bean/VersionedObjectTester.java > > The example object VersionedPOJO.java, has 1 interceptor pointcut > declared on the class to do Tx stuff. See > testsuite/src/resources/aop/META-INF/jboss-aop.xml for more details. > > What would be nice is to also write a TransactionalLock interceptor for > versioned POJO's that have high OptimisticLock failures. > > Bill > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > __
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
>JBoss Remoting is much more fabulous. We need to get the word out on it... I need to write some darn docs.. Too busy trying to get a new release out on our side. Not enough hours in a day. > I totally agree. And yes, a constructor pointcut is the way to go. The only downside of constructor pointcuts is that reflection bypasses the interception! > Same thing with field interception. The problem is that unlike methods, you have to modify the bytecode of the calling logic. Could you dynamically do an insertBefore into the CtConstructor of the advised class which would do the interception, even on reflection? > I will write some testcases that put the whole stack together with constructor pointcuts. > > I'm also working on the concept of an abstract Container. But you got me thinking that constructor pointcuts may be enough... I was just going to email you about the Container - just looking through the code. Is this just the ability to create an AOP namespace or something? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill > Burke > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff > > Haynie > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:07 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > > > Bill, > > > > This is fabulous stuff. Good job. > > > > JBoss Remoting is much more fabulous. We need to get the word > out on it... > > > Is there a way we might be able to use the AOP xml to dynamically do > > your example below (as well as the clustered and remoting) for POJOs > > during construction time? In other words, could you not have an > > interceptor on a constructor pointcut that would do this for you and > > dynamically make the class Versionable, Clusterable, Remotable, etc. so > > that the actual instance you receive back has these capabilities > > transparently w/o having to programatically do this? > > > > The advantages of this would be that you could dynamically modify the > > POJO from the XML file without having to do it programmatically (of > > course, you could if you wanted to). That way, we can truly separate > > the business logic (as an example, no flames here) from the > > cross-cutting of concerns such as transactibility, security, remoteness, > > etc. > > > > Looking at the jboss-aop.xml in the testsuite - it looks like you're > > doing this with the Tx Interceptor on the VersionedPOJO - why not just > > create the VersionedPOJO in the same way and insert the Versioned > > Interceptor the same way? Is this possible? > > > > > I totally agree. And yes, a constructor pointcut is the way to go. The > only downside of constructor pointcuts is that reflection bypasses the > interception! Same thing with field interception. The problem is that > unlike methods, you have to modify the bytecode of the calling logic. > > I will write some testcases that put the whole stack together with > constructor pointcuts. > One more thing...I don't think the constructor pointcut approach makes sense most of the time for Remoting and Clustering. The point being that you don't want to hardcode your remotable object to a specific protocol. Bill --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff > Haynie > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > >JBoss Remoting is much more fabulous. We need to get the word out on > it... > > I need to write some darn docs.. Too busy trying to get a new release > out on our side. Not enough hours in a day. > > > > I totally agree. And yes, a constructor pointcut is the way to go. > The only downside of constructor pointcuts is that reflection bypasses > the interception! > > Same thing with field interception. The problem is that unlike > methods, you have to modify the bytecode of the calling logic. > > Could you dynamically do an insertBefore into the CtConstructor of the > advised class which would do the interception, even on reflection? > I'm not sure...The problem with Versioning and Remoting is that a proxy object is required. You have to return a different object than the one actually constructed. You getting me? I'm not sure if this can be done within bytecode manipulation. I'll have to ask the Javassist guys. > > I will write some testcases that put the whole stack together with > constructor pointcuts. > > > > I'm also working on the concept of an abstract Container. But you got > me thinking that constructor pointcuts may be enough... > > I was just going to email you about the Container - just looking through > the code. Is this just the ability to create an AOP namespace or > something? > I guess you could think of it in that way and use it in that way, but the original intent was to handle things like dynamic loading through the persistence mechanism much in the same way an Entity Bean Container handles invocations on objects that are not in memory yet. You get what I'm saying? Bill > > > > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] Verify primary key implements equals and hashCode
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 09:29 PM, Victor Langelo wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
After some email with Bill, it looks like we can use
Class.getDeclaredMethods to find which method the class implements
(you learn something new every day). It specifically excludes
inherited methods, so we can use it to verify if a primary key has
actually implemented hashCode and equals.
Class.getDeclaredMethod("equals", new Class[] { Object.class }) should
also do the trick and won't return inherited methods.
I dumb; I missed that one.
Since equals equals is not really inheritable (see Effective Java), I
think we should throw a verifier error if a pk does not directly
implement it.
I haven't read Effective Java, but this won't work for us. We
intentionally create derived primary key classes for each entity.
These are derived from generic pk classes when the primary key data is
a simple primative type. The super class implements equals, compareTo
and hashCode. I don't see any reason these would need to be
reimplemented in each derived class.
The purpose of the derived classes is primarly for type safety.
I loaned my copy of Effective Java to a friend so I can't quote. The
basic idea is that if a.equals(b) is true b.equals(a) must also be
true. This means you must test for the exact type of the related
compare to object. You must have code that looks something like this.
public boolean equals(object o)
{
if(o instanceof MyType)
{
return value.equals((MyType).value);
}
return false;
}
The important part is the instance of check. I suppose you could do
this check with reflection... something like this
if(getClass() == o.getClass())
So I guess you are right, but we know that if one of the super classes
(other then Object) we know that the implementation is wrong.
public static boolean definesEquals(Class clazz)
{
Class[] params = new Class[] { Object.class };
while (clazz != null && !clazz.equals(Object.class)) {
try {
Method m = clazz.getDeclaredMethod("equals", params);
if (m.getReturnType() == Integer.TYPE)
return true;
} catch (NoSuchMethodException) {
}
clazz = clazz.getSuperclass();
}
return false;
}
That should work.
-dain
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
Hi bill, The versioning of POJO is very good. I have some issues here. If I version a object, then I have to maintain all the state in the same POJO which is not the general case and will bloat the code. The states are maintained in the helper classes. Also defining each POJO as versioned is meaningless. If new proxies are created for each transaction with the deep copy of all the state or maintain a pool and synchronize the state after update, it will become real performance bottleneck.How do you tackle this problem? Correct me if I am missing something. Where or when can get the code from the CVS? Thanks Karthi > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Bill > Burke > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Jeff > > Haynie > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:51 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > > > > > >JBoss Remoting is much more fabulous. We need to get the > word out on > > it... > > > > I need to write some darn docs.. Too busy trying to get a > new release > > out on our side. Not enough hours in a day. > > > > > > > I totally agree. And yes, a constructor pointcut is the > way to go. > > The only downside of constructor pointcuts is that > reflection bypasses > > the interception! > > > Same thing with field interception. The problem is that unlike > > methods, you have to modify the bytecode of the calling logic. > > > > Could you dynamically do an insertBefore into the > CtConstructor of the > > advised class which would do the interception, even on reflection? > > > > I'm not sure...The problem with Versioning and Remoting is > that a proxy > object is required. You have to return a different object > than the one > actually constructed. You getting me? I'm not sure if this > can be done > within bytecode manipulation. I'll have to ask the Javassist guys. > > > > I will write some testcases that put the whole stack together with > > constructor pointcuts. > > > > > > I'm also working on the concept of an abstract Container. > But you got > > me thinking that constructor pointcuts may be enough... > > > > I was just going to email you about the Container - just > looking through > > the code. Is this just the ability to create an AOP namespace or > > something? > > > > I guess you could think of it in that way and use it in that > way, but the > original intent was to handle things like dynamic loading through the > persistence mechanism much in the same way an Entity Bean > Container handles > invocations on objects that are not in memory yet. You get > what I'm saying? > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > > ___ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration
Versioning --> Versioning can be done by Byte code manipulation. Instead of maintaining the state as a proxy, you can maintain the state in a list in the manipulated class. Remoting --> has to be done through proxy, but abstract the user by the Inteceptor sending the proxy based on the communication layer. Karthik > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Bill > Burke > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Jeff > > Haynie > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:51 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration > > > > > > > > >JBoss Remoting is much more fabulous. We need to get the > word out on > > it... > > > > I need to write some darn docs.. Too busy trying to get a > new release > > out on our side. Not enough hours in a day. > > > > > > > I totally agree. And yes, a constructor pointcut is the > way to go. > > The only downside of constructor pointcuts is that > reflection bypasses > > the interception! > > > Same thing with field interception. The problem is that unlike > > methods, you have to modify the bytecode of the calling logic. > > > > Could you dynamically do an insertBefore into the > CtConstructor of the > > advised class which would do the interception, even on reflection? > > > > I'm not sure...The problem with Versioning and Remoting is > that a proxy > object is required. You have to return a different object > than the one > actually constructed. You getting me? I'm not sure if this > can be done > within bytecode manipulation. I'll have to ask the Javassist guys. > > > > I will write some testcases that put the whole stack together with > > constructor pointcuts. > > > > > > I'm also working on the concept of an abstract Container. > But you got > > me thinking that constructor pointcuts may be enough... > > > > I was just going to email you about the Container - just > looking through > > the code. Is this just the ability to create an AOP namespace or > > something? > > > > I guess you could think of it in that way and use it in that > way, but the > original intent was to handle things like dynamic loading through the > persistence mechanism much in the same way an Entity Bean > Container handles > invocations on objects that are not in memory yet. You get > what I'm saying? > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > > ___ > > Jboss-development mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > ___ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Re: [JBoss-dev] run scripts and -server
Just a word of caution: the SUN server vm had a lot of stability issues
in the past, which was one of the reasons for BEA to use JRockit. I
stopped using the server vm because of frequent crashes under load as
well; this might have been fixed, however.
The -server setting has high thresholds until compilation kicks in,
which might slow it down in development mode.
The current way of using JAVA_OPTS is good enough for me.
Stefan
On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 20:39 US/Pacific, Ricardo Argüello wrote:
Yeah, grep is part of Cygwin.
I think it is unfair that run.sh has the -server option enabled (if we
have a Sun JVM), and that the run.bat uses the Hotspot Client JVM by
default (again, if we are using the Sun JVM).
The Hotspot Server JVM should be A LOT FASTER than the Client one.
* From Sun's docs at
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/docs/guide/vm/index.html :
"Java HotSpot Server VM: The Java HotSpot Server VM is designed for
maximum program execution speed for applications running in a server
environment. The Java HotSpot Server VM is invoked by using the
-server command-line option when launching an application."
JBoss would perform better and _faster_, by just adding one parameter
in the run.bat file.
We must find a way to enable that option by default...
Ricardo Argüello
- Original Message -
From: "Hunter Hillegas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JBoss Dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Looking to do 3.2.0 final next this weekend
No clue. I'm a *nix guy.
Is grep part of Cygwin?
From: Ricardo Argüello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:34:51 -0500
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Looking to do 3.2.0 final next this weekend
In run.sh the output of the "java" command is grepped for the
"Hotspot"
string, to determine if we have a Sun JVM.
I'm not a "batch expert". How do you do something like that in a .bat
file?
Ricardo Argüello
- Original Message -
From: "Hunter Hillegas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JBoss Dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Looking to do 3.2.0 final next this weekend
Just a thought...
AFAIK, the -server flag is not required to be supported by all VMs,
and at
one point the OS X VM didn't support it (it does now)... Obviously
run.bat
is for Windows but logic to detect if -server is supported might be a
good
thing in case certain VMs don¹t include it.
From: Ricardo Argüello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:32:50 -0500
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Looking to do 3.2.0 final next this weekend
Hi,
Do you think that adding the "-server" flag to the bin\run.bat file
would be
a
good idea for the 3.2 release?
The Hotspot Server VM is used in run.sh, but not in run.bat actually
("-server" is added as a parameter to the $JAVA_HOME/bin/java
invocation).
The Hotspot Server VM should perform A LOT better than the Client
one (that
one is used if no -server parameter is added to the java.exe
command).
As I said in one previous message, run.sh is already using that VM,
why
shouldn't we add that option to run.bat? I don't think it would be a
problem,
now that we are releasing 3.2, do you?
Please read the message I sent the other day about that change in
HEAD, and
if
you find it appropiate, I'll backport it to the 3.2 branch.
Please let me know what do you think about that change.
Thanks in advance,
Ricardo Arguello
- Original Message -
From: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Looking to do 3.2.0 final next this weekend
I'm looking to do the 3.2.0 final release this weekend so please
try to
clean
up any outstanding bugs in your areas by then. I'll start putting
the
release
together on the 30th and finalize it something on the 31st barring
any
major problems.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There!
NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
---
This SF.net email is spons
