yeap that's it JB3.0 and web services...
will fix the cache sync code and then commit the dynamic loading of services
bit
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter
|Fagerlund
|Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:29 AM
|To: [EMAIL
|In fact, if we could lift the logic that is now located in the
|J2eeGlobalDeployer (or say, in the J2eeGlobalDeployer before Mad Andy did
|that mad monster change which simply deleted all the lines ;-) underneath
|the J2eeDeployer at a level above, there is a chance
|that we could also derive
|My suggestion was intended for the Rabbit Hole and originally
|meant to be used with commit options B/C in case there are
|multiple bean instances when Rabbit Hole is finished.
yes, that would be interesting.
|Multiple instances would be not very usefull with pessimistic
|locking done on the
|Sorry Georg, I don't what planet I was on when I made the option A with
|optimistic locking comment.
Option A with optimistic locking would be interesting.
it is Option A with pessimistic db locking that doesn't really bring
anything new.
He was criticizing the no copy of the cache for a new
|Uppps, sorry for that but I have some problems with my editor which
|sometimes just delete the content of a file and my build CVS update
|just also updated this file.
|From my point of view just bring 1.7 back.
that's a nice one, sorry the cat ate my file, sorry emacs just deleted the
repo...
|I added transaction isolation to the new cmp plugin. You can set it by
|adding the transaction-isolation element after the datasource element.
|Valid levels are:
|transaction-none
|transaction-read-committed
|transaction-read-uncommitted
|transaction-repeatable-read
|
|Isolation levels and locking are really orthonogal, aren't they?
not entirely for example if we decide to NOT lock at the cache level
something that the new cache design will allow then you need to make sure
that isolation levels are such that you don't corrupt your db.
yes the code that
|Please correct me if I'm wrong(I seem to be wrong about 50% of the
|time :-),
|but, I really don't think you should expose transaction-isolation levels
|within CMP or in the definition of entities. This really belongs in the
|creation of the connection pool. CMP cannot really guarantee that a
|I don't think I understand what you are suggesting. However...
|
|Are you familiar with the lock-free versioning/ optimistic locking scheme
|used in interbase/firebird?
|
|transactions are numbered sequentially when they are started.
|
|Each record (version) includes the transaction id of the
|I disagreewell, at least for our app, we have transactions where some
|entities really need to be serialized and other entities within the
|transaction are just fine with read_committed.
we will need to express this in code, but there are really 2 levels of
synchronization that need to
|But if they're in the same transaction, they must use the same isolation
|level - per our discussion on the database doing an implicite commit
|when you try to change levels. I don't think it makes logical sense to
|talk about having two different transaction isolation levels in the same
sorry
I didn't see it before, thanks for pinging me privately, no thanks for the html
:(
The
test does cover what you talk about: a remove that is working in parallel with a
passivation.
What I
would really want to do is trigger passivation (in the job thread not C) and
timeouts.
|Why can't a transaction manage different resources and each of those
|resources use a different transaction-isolation level? What's wrong with
|that?
imho nothing
marcf
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sure, it would be useful to be able to specify different levels per
| bean, but given the apparent constraints that the databases are putting
| us under, implementing it against the database isn't feasable.
|
|
|Just use a freakin' different connection pool for different beans and there
|is no
about this fine a
feature...
marcf
|
|-dain
|- Original Message -
|From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:36 PM
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] High load...
|
|
| | Sure, it would be useful to be able to specify different levels per
| | bean
we are discussing exactly the opposite, I am deeply convinced that this
belongs in jaws
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:56 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] CVS
:[EMAIL PROTECTED];Marc Fleury/a
| +*
| +*
| +* Revisions:
| +*
| +* 20010626 marc fleury: Cache should be working with the
|MethodInvocation
| +*
| +* @version $Revision: 1.12 $
| +*/
| public abstract class AbstractInstanceCache
| -implements InstanceCache, XmlLoadable
actually yes it will, did not change release and insert...
never mind
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:52 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CVS update:
|jboss/src/main/org/jboss/ejb/plugins
|When we get to support IIOP invocations, the CORBA
|invocation transport layer automagically imports
|incoming TPCs, and we never see a TPC that we can
|import.
Yes
|That means that we cannot do the TPC import in the
|transaction interceptors.
|I guess the same argument goes for optimized
| Sorry, I rolled back the code before you responded. If you want
|me to put
| it back in, I will it takes about 10 minutes. I think I made a
| mistake and
| made the first change to quick (it was easy) , and I think we
| need to figure
| out what we are doing (design before code).
ok let's
| Bill are you saying..
|
| BeanA BeanB
|/ \ / \
| PoolA PoolB PoolC PoolD --- configure here
| \ \ / /
| \ \ / /
|\ /
| \ /
| DB1
|
|
|Nope, I'm saying this
|
|
|ReadCommittedPool
|SerializedPool
so just 2 pools
this is an educating discussion, I never had before to think precisely of
all the objects involved..
however
|I think you are agreeing with what I proposed earlier, if you have say a
|session bean method with Requires/Serialiable calling 17 entity bean
|methods with Requires/Read Committed, the
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
| fleury
| Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:59 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CVS update:
| jboss/src/main/org/jboss/ejb/plugins/jaws/jdbc JDBCCommand.java
|
|
| | Bill are you saying..
| |
| | BeanA BeanB
| |/ \ / \
| | PoolA PoolB
|different bean types by attaching different pools to those beans. You're
|totally right that without true XA and 2pc, using 2 different pools is
|probably a bad idea and should be avoided at all costs.
not so fast :)
actually we can use the isolation levels (which is an important thing) if
it will simplify the design so much that I am really tempted..
any religious feelings?
marcf
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo
|Category: None
|Group: Next Release (example)
|Status: Open
|Priority: 5
|Submitted By: Bill Burke (patriot1burke)
|Assigned to: Bill Burke (patriot1burke)
|Summary: add isolation cfg to pools
|
|Initial Comment:
|Add ability to set transaction isolation level on a
|connection pool with
r...
not possible, otherwise we set the context over and over and that is a call
on the instance...
arrr
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 5:31 PM
|To: Jboss-Development
People
have no shame I tell you, don't even bother about it, just go to bed,
your
attitude is much appreciated though,
marcf
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Vinay MenonSent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:50 PMTo:
[EMAIL
2001, marc fleury wrote:
|
| |When we get to support IIOP invocations, the CORBA
| |invocation transport layer automagically imports
| |incoming TPCs, and we never see a TPC that we can
| |import.
|
| Yes
|
| |That means that we cannot do the TPC import in the
| |transaction interceptors.
| |I guess
|hence we could rely on a serializable HashMap or whatever.
|
|I´d be glad to assist you wherever possible in that respect ...
my schedule is
finish busy wait LW bug fixing (almost done)
commit URL based rabbit hole (almost done)
JMX'ify invocation chain in invoker-container, first beta rabbit
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dain
|Sundstrom
|Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 7:18 PM
|To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] CMP 2.x Relationships Implementation
|
|
|Hi all,
|
|I have been working on CMP 2.x relationships and
go try it out... it is working really well,
go post questions there...
http://www.jboss.org:8081/jive
there until the end of the week, then move in production, come on!
regards
marcf
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hey,
almost done with the rewrite of the locking mechanisms..
the bug removed is the busywait bug of the previous leaky-lock but in all
instance what we are looking for is hangs in *particular threads*. I really
don't know how we can automate that.
marc
|-Original Message-
|From:
Ok finishing the test of the cache, found interesting stuff...
onto your mail
1- turn of html
2- see below
Don't get annoyed with me, but your new threads test is incomplete:
that's ok, I don't shoot the messenger, I do shoot the implementor
- You need to also randomize on the bean's
Yo yourself,
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|Bordet, Simone
|
|Yo,
|
| I'm on top of it, got the fix with the next generation of
| synchronization...
| but it is 12:30 am and I need to get up at 5 to go to the INS
| and get my
| permanent residency card... yep got to be in line at 6am
|
| I don't understand the second point, what do you mean the calls will be
| serialized? please explain,
|
|
|
|My point was that if you're accessing the same entity with the same primary
|key, the threads will be all queued up waiting on eachother. Only one
it better! that is the spec!
that's
|Yeah, I guess it's cool now that you removed InstancePooling. God, pooling
|just fucked everything up and caused a lot of complexity. I wonder if
|pooling actually had any effect on performance anyways?
we will see... it is one of those things where a fancy CMP engine would
SPEED us up SO
|Marc, since you get rid of the pool, do you use WaitSemaphore to
|wait/notify
|or you wait/notify on the context ?
2 levels a ctx w/n and a ctx.getTxLock w/n for the tx related issues.
|That was a pain when I worked on it, but I believed the pool was somehow
|necessary for performance, didn't
this has been bothering me for quite some time...
did I just embarrass myself?
do you guys know?
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:32 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: registerSync on rolledback transaction
|
|
|Hi
|taken care of (actually by bill, that was a real fix (as opposed
|to removing
|the LW message ;-)) I am sticking to that logic
what I mean by that is that removing the LW message wasn't a fix. It was
cosmetic and *REALLY* pegged the cpu at 100%, this was the real bug simone
had, the busy-wait
|I wasn't saying that you shouldn't protect the cache or the
|context, but for
|cache.release(ctx), again, why schedule the passivation? Why not just
|passivate it.
|
|public void release(ctx)
|{
| synchronized(getCacheLock())
| {
| Object id = getKey(ctx);
| if
| this is locked on getCacheLock(), and the passivation in case of stateful
| stuff is slow (write to disk). getCacheLock locks the whole application.
|
| bad, right?
|
|
|Duh! You're right, sorry. But, wait.Aren't you doing a
|getCachLock() in
|PassivationJob as well? Same problem, just
|For objects that do a lot of stuff in set*Context, yes. Common
|operations are lookup of home objects, and to create data structures. In
|those cases pooling is essential.
it is the ***reuse*** that really fucks us up. We can prefab some
instances and keep pools at a minimum level but no reuse.
|marc fleury wrote:
| We saw with rickard that Proxy creation is a bit slow and he mentioned a
| flag at the object level to allow pooling... will have to
|research that...
| but for the pools I believe it is non important
|
|See:
|http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/api/java/lang/ref
as I wrap up the stuff, sanity check
bean a and bean b
a starts transaction and calls b.remove() and then rolls back
b is still there in cache right?
marcf
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
___
Jboss
)) but for the stateful...?
marcf
|
|Bill
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
| fleury
| Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:57 PM
| To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
| Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|
|
| as I wrap up the stuff
of a rollback. Otherwise you may have corrupted data.
|
| Bill
|
|
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:57 PM
|To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
check that BMT
doesn't do that (it might be part of the business logic)
marcf
|
|Bill
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
| fleury
| Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 3:30 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove
so
fifteen minute time lapse
is the create the same? cannot be transactional??? or just remove?
having problems with the new code as we speak
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:26 PM
that is the CMT+sync case I was refering to, the BMT case is even more
clear cut imho...
time to commit (without that part, I need to refresh on the spec)
marcf
|
|Regards,
|Bill
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
| fleury
| Sent: Tuesday
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
Now that I (almost) done with the container synchronization rewrite, I am
going to commit the JBoss 3.0 code that I have on my laptop, if I remember
correctly I move most of the stuff to services.xml (the old jboss.jcml) and
log4j should go there, will try to commit this piece by next tuesday
I always thought you were number 6...
But I guess you're not a number
you are a free man
I'm a prisoner
a href=http://www.retroweb.com/prisoner.html;never mind/a
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron
|Mulder
|Sent: Wednesday,
honestly this doesn't really help, too complex a business scenario, bean a
calls b calls c calls d calls e calls f then something goes wrong...
can you minimize the repro case? like something simpler?
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Excellent!
frankly I will try to read tonight, finishing up the stateful stuff (minor
rewrite).
read real fast: the wait() as opposed to wait(5000), I know :) I do it on
purpose, if there is a lock I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. In fact wait(5000)
only makes things cosmetically better, a missed
required but clearly very
cool, ok you want me to spell it out? get on your keyboard and fucking
develop that fast transactional stateful cache, come on!
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 5
, non spec required but clearly very
|cool, ok you want me to spell it out? get on your keyboard and fucking
|develop that fast transactional stateful cache, come on!
|
|marcf
|
||-Original Message-
||From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
||[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
||fleury
||Sent
uh wait, I thought I commited that...
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 9:33 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] jboss daily build failed - in cvs module: jboss
|
|
|
it's there, in flight commit :)
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 9:45 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] jboss daily build failed - in cvs module: jboss
|
|
|uh wait
|I believe the solution there is to re-check the tx in ctx inside the else
|reentrant block and break with a null context to make a 1 loop (no wait)
|back in the synchronized(ctx.getLock()), that will work a wait.
done in cvs
||- In EntitytInstanceInterceptor.invoke in the finally block. If
| So what do I have to do to get SourceForge to recognize me instead
|of calling me 51402? I've ssh'd to cvs.jboss.sourceforge.net
uh yeah... it is calling me 48247 and we don't see the cvs commit messages,
not good,
I do hope that it DOES check the stuff though :(
(yes it does I just
|That could work, yes. If you do on demand it's back to
|wait-on-init-land, but replenishing in background could be ok.
Even better (checked in yesterday) create on free, don't reuse, let the
passivation thread replenish it.
And then sometime far away in the distance outside my cockpit window,
it's a really odd one, the only place we use toString is in the passivation
engines (store to file) so you are looking at something else besides the
cache.
Find what's screwed up it is an interesting one,
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
|Not quite sure if I am off-track here, but:
|
|If you want to avoid loosing statistics, you
|might want to consider combining these two
|methods into a single atomic call.
|
|For example, if you want to count bean invocations,
|and do not want to drop a single invocation from
|your statistics.
|The only reason that I can think not to use Log4j is that we then force
|clients to have Log4j and configure it. Is that such a bad thing?
The only reason I can think of is that no one has coded it ;)
marcf
|
|--jason
|
|
|___
|Jboss-development
not found :(
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|Julian Gosnell
|Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:58 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] JBoss-2.4.0BETA_Jetty-3.1.RC5-3.zip - on it's
|way...
|
|
|
|This package should
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|Lennart Petersson
|Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 4:21 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: SV: [JBoss-dev] Any problems vith the cache in 2.4?
|
|
|Hi! Problem 1 solved by you Vincent - that was the
]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:13 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] cvs down this morning?
|
|
|can anyone connect to it?
|I am trying to download teh new jetty for the www.jboss.org website and I
|can't connect
|
|
|:(
|
|marcf
|
||-Original Message
3 space
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason
|Dillon
|Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:14 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] 3 space indent?
|
|
|Or has that changed?
|
|--jason
|
|
one of the errors is the old threading test, the test I run is more
comprehensive but I will take a look at what is going on in there this
weekend
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jason
|Dillon
|Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:11
User: mnf999
Date: 01/07/06 19:49:36
Added: pictures danch.jpg jason.jpg marc.jpg nathy.jpg
Log:
new pictures of people
Revision ChangesPath
1.1 newsite/pictures/danch.jpg
Binary file
1.1
RABBIT HOLE ... JBoss#153; 3.0
- p class=textFor those of you eager to find out how deep the rabbit
hole goes, JBoss#153; founder and lead developer Marc Fleury announces that he will
be spending 10 weeks, from June 11 through August 17 working on bringing the next
generation JBoss
ok,
I am super confused...
so the changes I made to the interceptor won't show in 2.4 right? only in
the 2.5 branch.
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 7:33 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathalie Mason joins husband, Marc Fleury, in his
efforts to grow JBoss.org
and JBoss Group as Director of Business Development. Prior to joining JBoss Group,
Nathalie worked as a financial writer for Franklin Templeton mutual funds. Nathalie
holds a masters degree in Comparative Literature from
Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:49 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JAWS_2_4 DTD
|
|
|Right, you committed to main. This is the 2.5 effort although its not a
|branch.
|
|- Original Message -
|From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 9:47 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] jboss daily test results
|
|
|
|
|JBoss daily test results
|
|SUMMARY
|
|Number of tests run: 112
that we might be
the best in the world?
huh?
never mind...
I'm just losing it
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists
|Now that is what it should look like ;)
yeah, the strange part is that I didn't do anything :)
I just waited (well was working on the website forums)
and poof, just like that, they were gone :)
marcf
|
|--jason
|
|
|On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
|
|
| JBoss daily test
|
|
|There are a few ladies too =)
|
|--jason
|
|
|On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, marc fleury wrote:
|
|
| that we might be
| the best in the world?
|
| huh?
|
| never mind...
| I'm just losing it
|
| _
| Marc Fleury, Ph.D
| [EMAIL PROTECTED
|the place for future development. Commit the rabbit hole work to main
|and it becomes a part of the current 2.5 development work. It will be
|released as a 3.0 branch.
|
|- Original Message -
|From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 9:07 PM
vinay,
chill, you have been here before. I recommendation to you is to commit that
code and document it HEAVILY so that people know it is there and how to use
it (if not fully automated) etc etc.
It just doesn't work this way, nobody has time to review your code *as you
post it*, so post it
the changes of the cache are found in 2.5. I might retrofit them to 2.4 for
other reasons.
are you using 2.5 when you say the problems are gone?
|I got this one also.
|It disappeared.
|I think (not sure) it was because of my bloody hashCode() method.
|Maybe it is linked to recent changes on
Mr Riyaz ahamed
ONE MORE 2000 LINES POST FOR SUPPORT ON JBOSS-DEV AND I BLOCK *ALL**
MAILS FROM YOU
YOU UNDERSTAND ME
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
what what bothers me with this on-going discussion: we don't care whether
you fuck up your own hashcode or not, we wrap it up and afaik Bill plugged
teh last hole there, so that should really be tight as a drum...
show me a clear bug repro on this and I will buy it... if it is plain gone
then
?
|- Original Message -
|From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: Jboss-User@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|[EMAIL PROTECTED];
|Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:07 PM
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] IT'S ALIVE!
|
|
|
| www.jboss.org/forums
10 seconds go there and remove the bastard
Quarantined! your mails contains word(s)/phrase bastard
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:43 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re:
|I'm surprised it hasn't already happened:
|
|Maybe we could all mail him a core file - making sure it didn't contain
|the string 'xxx' or 'ad:' ?
LOL :) be nice, come on... don't
well... maybe a couple I got a really nice one here what is the sed grep
command...
marcf
|
|
|Jules
|
|
|Scott M
good catch scott,
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:32 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] Fool proof? I think not.
|
|
|// TestPK.java
|class AccountPK implements
| Why? Because Serialization includes the private state of the
| object. This is
| a perfectly valid PK which is not handled correctly by CacheKey. If the
| _hashCode value is marked as transient all works. The assumption being
| made by CacheKey is that the only ivars in the PK are its fields
|
keys by client
|code.
|
|
|
|- Original Message -
|From: marc fleury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:38 PM
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Fool proof? I think not.
|
|
| | Why? Because Serialization includes the private state of the
| | object
man! mad andy _knows_ teaser
you go check out the article that i write one day gets out :)
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
|Jencks
|Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 12:07 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev]
User: mnf999
Date: 01/07/10 23:34:05
Modified:pictures head2.gif head3.gif
Added: pictures head000.jpg
Log:
new logo
Revision ChangesPath
1.2 +9 -10 newsite/pictures/head2.gif
Binary file
1.2 +8 -9
User: mnf999
Date: 01/07/10 23:37:00
Modified:.navigation.jsp lists.jsp cvs.jsp head.jsp
Log:
new logo look pointing to forums
Revision ChangesPath
1.5 +12 -7 newsite/navigation.jsp
Index: navigation.jsp
User: mnf999
Date: 01/07/11 00:00:06
Added: pictures jboss.survey.zip
Log:
Andreas survey
Revision ChangesPath
1.1 newsite/pictures/jboss.survey.zip
Binary file
___
Jboss-development
|Central? I don't like this word.
|
|I always have an exception :
|java.io.FileNotFoundException: Failed to find logj4 props:
|file:C:/dev/etango/conf/log4j.properties
and what do you want *us* to do about it... cecile...
check FADQ forum and the explanation
marcf
explicitely, there is
no fool proofness here, the rest is taste and making life easier for our
users.
marcf
|
|-Dan
|
|On 10 Jul 01, at 23:03, marc fleury wrote:
|
| ok,
|
| scott has put his finger on a solid fact, you can screw up your
|PK and the
| cache key won't save you. It is not what I thought
User: mnf999
Date: 01/07/11 11:15:53
Added: pictures jboss.survey.ear
Log:
andreas survey partII
Revision ChangesPath
1.1 newsite/pictures/jboss.survey.ear
Binary file
___
_tesyt
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
|When a transaction times out it still should be notifying any threads that
|went into
|a wait state because of contention with respect to the transaction. If you
|want a
|quick fix to test that the problem is loss of the end of transaction
|notification
|simply change this line:
|
|190
Jason,
I am very interested in a centralized management of classes per VM. This is
the only way we will make the GPA come alive with JMX as a bus. Setting
classloaders properly on thread context requires every service or module to
be able to identify the classes with a global application
201 - 300 of 2123 matches
Mail list logo
