[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-709559 ] Bogus http session handling(?)

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=709559group_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:
jsp:forward page=/loginservlet /

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=detailatid=376685aid=709559group_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(?)

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=709559group_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:
jsp:forward page=/loginservlet /

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=detailatid=376685aid=709559group_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(?)

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #709559, was opened at 2003-03-25 18:51
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=709559group_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:
jsp:forward page=/loginservlet /

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=detailatid=376685aid=709559group_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

2003-03-26 Thread Chris Kimpton
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


RE: [JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Feature Requests-710007 ] WEBDAV deployment

2003-03-26 Thread Sacha Labourey
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=detailatid=376688aid=7
10007group_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=detailatid=376688aid=710007group_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

2003-03-26 Thread Jeremy Boynes
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=detailatid=376688aid=7
 10007group_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=detailatid=376688aid=7
10007group_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] Eclipse does not read $CVSROOT/cvsignore

2003-03-26 Thread Igor Fedorenko
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 project/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

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #710149, was opened at 2003-03-26 16:41
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=710149group_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=detailatid=376685aid=710149group_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

2003-03-26 Thread Igor Fedorenko
 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


[JBoss-dev] [ jboss-Bugs-710204 ] ra.xml does not pass validation

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #710204, was opened at 2003-03-26 10:05
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=710204group_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 license is wrong.

According to http://java.sun.com/dtd/connector_1_0.dtd ,

llicense-required should come after description

An easy change for David Jencks.

Han Ming

--

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=710204group_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.

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #707730, was opened at 2003-03-21 20:58
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=707730group_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=detailatid=376685aid=707730group_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

2003-03-26 Thread SourceForge.net
Bugs item #710396, was opened at 2003-03-26 15:09
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=710396group_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=detailatid=376685aid=710396group_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

2003-03-26 Thread Bill Burke
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-metadata name=234234 group=VERSIONED
class=org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO
method name=get.*
  read-onlytrue/read-only
/method
/class-metadata

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

2003-03-26 Thread marc fleury
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-metadata name=234234 group=VERSIONED 
 class=org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO
 method name=get.*
   read-onlytrue/read-only
 /method
 /class-metadata
 
 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

2003-03-26 Thread marc fleury
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-metadata name=234234 group=VERSIONED 
 class=org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO
 method name=get.*
   read-onlytrue/read-only
 /method
 /class-metadata
 
 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

2003-03-26 Thread Dain Sundstrom
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; imethod.length; 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;
   }
   public static boolean definesHashCode(Class clazz)
   {
  Method[] method = clazz.getDeclaredMethods();
  for(int i=0; imethod.length; i++)
  {
 if(method[i].getName().equals(hashCode) 
   method[i].getParameterTypes().length == 0 
   method[i].getReturnType() == Integer.TYPE)
 {
return true;
 }
  }
  return false;
   }


---
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

2003-03-26 Thread Dave Smith
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:

class-metadata name=234234 group=VERSIONED 
class=org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO
method name=get.*
 read-onlytrue/read-only
/method
/class-metadata

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

2003-03-26 Thread marc fleury
 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

2003-03-26 Thread marc fleury
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

2003-03-26 Thread Dave Smith
: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

2003-03-26 Thread Ben Sabrin
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

2003-03-26 Thread Victor Langelo
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; imethod.length; 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

2003-03-26 Thread Bill Burke


 -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

2003-03-26 Thread Jeff Haynie
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:

class-metadata name=234234 group=VERSIONED
class=org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO
method name=get.*
  read-onlytrue/read-only
/method
/class-metadata

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

2003-03-26 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
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

2003-03-26 Thread Bill Burke


 -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

2003-03-26 Thread Bill Burke


 -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-metadata name=234234 group=VERSIONED
 class=org.jboss.test.aop.bean.VersionedPOJO
 method name=get.*
   read-onlytrue/read-only
 /method
 /class-metadata

 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 

RE: [JBoss-dev] AOP versioned ACID objects 1st iteration

2003-03-26 Thread Jeff Haynie

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

2003-03-26 Thread Bill Burke


 -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

2003-03-26 Thread Bill Burke


 -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

2003-03-26 Thread Dain Sundstrom
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

2003-03-26 Thread Karthik
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

2003-03-26 Thread Karthik
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

2003-03-26 Thread Stefan Reich
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 sponsored by:
The Definitive IT and Networking