Hello,
This discussion is somehow strange because, and I agree with David: you
don't seem to be speaking about the same thing at the same time...
Asynchronous argumentation is hard to follow...
- I think we should have interceptors
- Yes, but the sky is blue
- No! Invokers can't handle DTM in
Bugs item #692157, was opened at 2003-02-24 10:53
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=692157group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Laurent Wozniak (lwozniak)
Assigned to:
Bugs item #692817, was opened at 2003-02-25 09:57
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=692817group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Simone (milasx)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
[]
7000
7000/500
Email7000
2000 2000/1080
27Email
250
250/600
760
760/800
2400
2400/1000
13640
[]
450
SMTP.,
Email,,,30~200/.
[]
10/100
30 90%
100/750
500/30001
[]
600
7000
1200
2000
1600
70002000
2100
70002000
Title: SMSNET MELODI GRAFIK HABERLER
24 Þubat 2003www.melodilerim.com / www.grafiklerim.com Allý Turnam Gülpembe - Barýþ Manço Arap Saçý - Erkin Koray Bir Kulunu Çok Sevdim - Ýbrahim Tatlýses Alyazmalým - Cahit Berkay Kum Gibi - Ahmet Kaya Düþler Sokaðý -Ezginin Günlüðü Whenever Wherever -
On 2003.02.25 02:58 Sacha Labourey wrote:
Hello,
This discussion is somehow strange because, and I agree with David: you
don't seem to be speaking about the same thing at the same time...
Asynchronous argumentation is hard to follow...
- I think we should have interceptors
- Yes, but
Interceptors seem reasonable, as long as there are no hidden costs behind
them. Why not keep them seperated and more flexible? Also allows
invokers to become a little bit simpler. The only down (aside from any
performance client-side class loading issues) are the read code as a
story fluff
well, aside from my and babelfish's inability to translate that...
Yeah... That's because I did a mistake... Shame... It is not Ortille, but
Ortie, which means nettle. That gives:
Maybe I am pushing Grand Mother in the nettles (i.e. maybe I go too
far...)
1. I was planning to move the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Jencks
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is still the best thing
since sliced bread
On 2003.02.24 14:35 Bill Burke
How about implementing some kind of seperate interceptor framwork around the client side and server side invocation layers??
David, if yoiu had a configurable way to plug in your tx interceptors at the invocation layer you would be ok right? I think david just needs to avoid duplicating the code
What
I'm saying is, why add this complication? Do we really need it?
KISS.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
Hiram ChirinoSent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:23
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [JBoss-dev]
I though what I sugested was KISS. Tx imporation is
currently done at the invoker level. I want to keep
it there but make it plugable via interceports at the
invoker level.
I guess it would be more KISS to just duplicate the
code that is in the trunk invoker over to all ther
other java based
Maybe we're confusing 2 issues here:
1. writing a maintainable usable jboss dtm
2. supporting corba etc.
I realize I am not entirely comfortable with the client interceptors, and I
notice that they are not really used in the local proxies. I don't think
my idea of using the client
Oh, you just want invoker interceptors for generic tx importation. I guess
this is fine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev]
Bugs item #682511, was opened at 2003-02-07 19:13
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=682511group_id=22866
Category: JBossTX
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Bob Cotton (bcotton969)
Assigned to: David Jencks
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1049
Successful tests: 1044
Errors:1
Failures: 4
[time of test: 2003-02-25.12-05 GMT]
[java.version:
Bugs item #682511, was opened at 2003-02-07 19:13
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=682511group_id=22866
Category: JBossTX
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Bob Cotton (bcotton969)
Assigned to: David Jencks
Bugs item #693311, was opened at 2003-02-26 00:34
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=693311group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Mike Youngstrom (youngm)
Assigned to:
Hi, Iam getting the following exception, but its not consistent, When they
occur if I clear the server all temp dir and restart the server it works
fine, can any one help me out with this? :-
JBoss version 3.0.0 integrated with tomcat 4.0.3 and JDK version is 1.3
19 matches
Mail list logo
