Bugs item #672331, was opened at 2003-01-22 10:42
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=672331group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Sacha Labourey (slaboure)
Assigned
Thanks for the report,
this is already fixed in the latest releases of jetty and is in
Jboss 3.0.5 (but that has some other problems).
I recommend 3.0.6 which will be out very soon now.
regards
Jan Bartel wrote: Fred,
I am forwarding your bug report to the Jetty support list where it
=
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS=
=
JAVA VERSION DETAILS
java version 1.3.1_06
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard
Bugs item #671775, was opened at 2003-01-21 13:26
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=671775group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 7
Submitted By: Stefan Kuehnel (skuehnel)
Assigned
Bean A is not really needed. The test was originally intended to test some
of the typical behaviors of an EJB such as call another bean, talk to the
database, etc. I just tested without bean A and got the same behavior. I'm
testing with 50 client threads. It seems to take a high number of
I do have a cluster configured, but I happen to be running only 1 server in
it for this test so there is no distributed transaction involved.
Thanks,
Matt Cleveland
- Original Message -
From: Igor Fedorenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:46 PM
Change Notes item #672538, was opened at 2003-01-22 11:28
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=381174aid=672538group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Matthew Munz (mattmunz)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
=
==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS=
=
JAVA VERSION DETAILS
java version 1.4.1_01
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard
Bugs item #672551, was opened at 2003-01-22 20:47
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=672551group_id=22866
Category: JBossMQ
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: E.Sriram (esriram)
Assigned to:
Dain,
I put this together with your use cases in mind. If possible, check it out, and let
me know what you think.
- Matt
-Original Message-
From: SourceForge.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [JBoss-dev] [
Perhaps I've missed something here. I've been so busy watching my log files
that I did not recognize that the client is not receiving this error. In
fact it is only reported as a warning. Still it's pretty scary to see these
flying by in the log file. It leaves you wondering if the transaction
Bugs item #672557, was opened at 2003-01-22 21:00
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=672557group_id=22866
Category: JBossMQ
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: E.Sriram (esriram)
Assigned to:
Oops. I have one more file to check in...
- Matt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed
Anyone mind if I rewrite the ServiceConfigurator et al to use JDOM
instead of DOM? I think there are too many of these stupid problems to
fix economically using DOM.
Thanks
david jencks
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 11:30 AM, SourceForge.net wrote:
Bugs item #672543, was opened at
I am doing some things around MetaData and centralized configuration and
configuration chains in AOP that I'd like to merge with the rest of JBoss.
Please see the topic configuration and metadata in the AOP forum.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Bill,
I read the forum, and I'm not sure how this relates to MBean Persistence. Your
examples seem to be AOP-specific. Could you give an example of what the integration
of this stuff with JMX would be like (if that is what you intend)?
- Matt
-Original Message-
From: Bill Burke
BTW, I realize that the name Master Configuration Service may be misleading. It
only configures the JMX RW attributes, and isn't really intended as a fundamental
architectural component, but rather as an optional tool and a POC for the flexibility
of JMX.
- Matt
-Original Message-
Bugs item #669043, was opened at 2003-01-16 13:28
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=669043group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Stefan Kuehnel (skuehnel)
Assigned
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1010
Successful tests: 1007
Errors:2
Failures: 1
[time of test: 2003-01-22.12-05 GMT]
[java.version:
I have concerns about a non-standard parser that has not seen a release in 9 months
and is stuck at beta8. Yes its supposed to conform to JSR-102, but this was founded
nearly two years ago and I can't find any status on this. Is this really the best XML
abstraction we can come up with?
Bugs item #620838, was opened at 2002-10-09 11:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=620838group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Jay Petersen (s2jcpete)
Assigned to: Scott M Stark
Bugs item #620838, was opened at 2002-10-09 08:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=620838group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Jay Petersen (s2jcpete)
Assigned to: Scott M Stark
Bugs item #620838, was opened at 2002-10-09 11:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=620838group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Jay Petersen (s2jcpete)
Assigned to: Scott M Stark
dom4j has a stable 1.3 release. You can see a comparison of a few doms
here: http://dom4j.org/compare.html
Regards,
Hiram
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
M Stark
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 4:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bugs item #620838, was opened at 2002-10-09 08:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=620838group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Jay Petersen (s2jcpete)
Assigned to: Scott M Stark
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 09:05 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
dom4j has a stable 1.3 release. You can see a comparison of a few doms
here: http://dom4j.org/compare.html
OK, dom4j looks fine. The xpath support looks very nice. Any
objections if I rewrite both ServiceConfigurator et al
Bugs item #620838, was opened at 2002-10-09 11:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=376685aid=620838group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Jay Petersen (s2jcpete)
Assigned to: Scott M Stark
dom4j looks much better.
usage of JDOM in the xmbean and several other places using xml4j?
Man these names are killing me, dom4j == xml4j?
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: David Jencks
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 10:51 PM, Scott M Stark wrote:
dom4j looks much better.
usage of JDOM in the xmbean and several other places using xml4j?
Man these names are killing me, dom4j == xml4j?
me too, obviously. I meant dom4j. xml4j turned into xerces several
years ago.
29 matches
Mail list logo
