Assuming that the errors and warnings are not a big deal, can you suggest
any reasons that we would have connections stacking up and timing out? The
use case is likely heavier on write than would be standard for LDAP, but it
seems the failure threshold (number of connections) is very low. This
On 10/13/11 5:31 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Assuming that the errors and warnings are not a big deal, can you suggest
any reasons that we would have connections stacking up and timing out? The
use case is likely heavier on write than would be standard for LDAP, but it
seems the failure threshold
Is it possible to switch out just MINA or would that break something?
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 10/13/11 5:31 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Assuming that the errors and warnings are not a big deal, can you suggest
any reasons that we would have connections stacking
On 10/13/11 5:53 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Is it possible to switch out just MINA or would that break something?
It *should* be possible, as the MINA API has been frozen in 2.0.0-RC1.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
We have a custom interceptor plugged in to 1.5.5. Did anything change in
1.5.7 that would break that? If not, we may be best off to just move to
1.5.7.
Thanks again,
craig
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
On 10/13/11 5:53 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Is it possible to
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Craig Setera cr...@mfoundry.com wrote:
We have a custom interceptor plugged in to 1.5.5. Did anything change in
1.5.7 that would break that? If not, we may be best off to just move to
1.5.7.
hard to tell without knowing(at least in a very high level view)
High-level... does alteration of the values of some of our schema
attributes. So, it sits in the flow and alters the data for those
particular attributes as they flow through.
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Craig Setera
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Craig Setera cr...@mfoundry.com wrote:
High-level... does alteration of the values of some of our schema
attributes. So, it sits in the flow and alters the data for those
particular attributes as they flow through.
ok, should work in the latest code without
Oh... Hopefully it works without recompile or this gets trickier. I guess
we will find out soon enough.
Thanks,
Craig
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Kiran Ayyagari wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Craig Setera
cr...@mfoundry.comjavascript:;
wrote:
High-level... does alteration of
On 10/13/11 6:52 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
We have a custom interceptor plugged in to 1.5.5. Did anything change in
1.5.7 that would break that? If not, we may be best off to just move to
1.5.7.
I don't know. Can you post the interceptor method's signatures?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Unfortunately, it appears there was a lot of refactoring between 1.5.5 and
1.5.7. It looks like MINA was updated in 1.5.6... do you have any idea if
the refactoring in that case would be less than what I'm seeing?
Thanks again,
Craig
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Craig Setera wrote:
Oh...
Looks like our emails crossed along the way. The breakage is pretty
extensive. I can work through it, but wondering if 1.5.6 would be any
better?
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
On 10/13/11 6:52 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
We have a custom interceptor plugged in to
On 10/13/11 10:43 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears there was a lot of refactoring between 1.5.5 and
1.5.7. It looks like MINA was updated in 1.5.6... do you have any idea if
the refactoring in that case would be less than what I'm seeing?
Again, it's hard to tell. If you
I appreciate the offer. Unfortunately, it is quite a lot of code. I'm
going to try a new version of MINA inside of 1.5.5 and see what happens.
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 10/13/11 10:43 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears there was a lot of
On 10/13/11 11:01 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
I appreciate the offer. Unfortunately, it is quite a lot of code. I'm
going to try a new version of MINA inside of 1.5.5 and see what happens.
Just the method's signature, not the code. If there is some issue with
1.5.7, it will be around the
Having connected my code to the 1.5.7 code it is more than that. I think I
may have reached into more internals for my implementation than I should
have and that that is the primary problem. With that said, my initial tests
with Mina 2.0.4 underneath 1.5.5 seem to be working. Is there anything
On 10/13/11 11:22 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Having connected my code to the 1.5.7 code it is more than that. I think I
may have reached into more internals for my implementation than I should
have and that that is the primary problem. With that said, my initial tests
with Mina 2.0.4 underneath
Hello,
Last week I was asking about indexing and performance gains from those
indexes. The question stemmed from some performance problems that we are
currently having in our environment. In that environment, we are seeing
extremely poor performance and Apache DS getting bogged down after a
On 10/12/11 10:24 PM, Craig Setera wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
which ADS version are you using ? Is it still 1.5.5 ?
Last week I was asking about indexing and performance gains from those
indexes. The question stemmed from some performance problems that we are
currently having in our environment.
19 matches
Mail list logo
