RE: Aegis versus jaxrs

2008-10-14 Thread Sergey Beryozkin
Hi, Same with the JAX-RS JAXB (and JAXB based JSON) provider - contexts are cached and can be reused. If ObjectFactory is available then only a single context will be created. At the moment, either a class name or just a package name can serve as a key in the (two) maps of contexts. May be for Ae

Re: Aegis versus jaxrs

2008-10-14 Thread Benson Margulies
I appreciate the cache. However, the minimum number of contexts is the number of packages! A property that takes a context object would, however, solve all of this for both Aegis and JAXB, so I'm excited. Can you tell me how to make a unit test for my Aegis stuff? On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:46 AM

RE: Aegis versus jaxrs

2008-10-14 Thread Sergey Beryozkin
Hi Sounds good. Have a look, say, at BinaryProvider unit test or at one of the atom providers tests, jaxb providers are poorly unit tested at the moment. Other providers tests might have some useful test methods too. The things to unit test is that MessageBodyReader.isReadable and MessageBodyWri

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel Kulp
I'm honestly no seeing this on my linux box with the latest code. I hit it with about 500K requests to warm up the JIT and stuff, check the heap sizes using jconsole (1.6VM), then hit it with another 1.5 million requests and rechecked the heap sizes and they ended up exactly the same. My

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread Bharath Ganesh
Dan, Looks like even Anoop says the heap size is constant. I guess he is talking about an increase in the OS process memory. Isn't it? -Bharath On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm honestly no seeing this on my linux box with the latest code. I hit

Re: JMS 1.0.2 support......

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Saturday 11 October 2008 3:34:52 am Christian Schneider wrote: > Hi Dan, > > sounds reasonable to me. I have added the config element to address and > set the default. I think setting useJms11 to false for 2.0.x and 2.1.x probably makes sense for compatibility sake. For 2.2 (trunk), it proba

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread anoopPrasad
Dear Dan/Bharat, I have checked Heap,non-Heap, and perm Gen Memory usage of the process through JCOnsole and OptimizeIT. And like Dan observed, its stable, more or less. (Like in the report in the first post) But still the OS (Solaris) reports a Resident Memory increase as well as the swap memor

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread anoopPrasad
Adding the Link again from the last post: Could you please have a look at the following post and tell me whether it applies to CXF. http://blogs.sun.com/fkieviet/entry/classloader_leaks_the_dreaded_java ~ anoopPrasad anoopPrasad wrote: > > Dear Dan/Bharat, > > I have checked Heap,non-Heap,

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 1:55:11 pm Bharath Ganesh wrote: > Dan, > > Looks like even Anoop says the heap size is constant. I guess he is talking > about an increase in the OS process memory. > Isn't it? Possibly, but it could also be the PermGenSpace or something. I checked that as well (the

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Tuesday 14 October 2008 2:19:44 pm anoopPrasad wrote: > Dear Dan/Bharat, > > I have checked Heap,non-Heap, and perm Gen Memory usage of the process > through JCOnsole and OptimizeIT. And like Dan observed, its stable, more or > less. > (Like in the report in the first post) > > But still the OS

Re: WS-SecurityPolicy in CXF 2.1.x, or just 2.2?

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel Kulp
Glen, See: http://e-docs.bea.com/wls/docs103/webserv_intro/interop.html Particularly the section entitled: WS-SecurityPolicy Interoperability Guidelines "As a result, Microsoft .NET 3.0 encrypts the UsernameToken in the policy assertion. If you use the policy assertion without encrypting th

Re: [VOTE] Release CXF 2.0.9

2008-10-14 Thread Christian Schneider
Hi Willem, so that´s fine with me. I think we should start a release note wiki page for 2.0.9 and perhaps also for 2.1.3. Btw. I noticed that there is no release notes page for the latest 2.1.2 release. In apache camel they create the release notes quite early and then collect the informatio

Re: [VOTE] Release CXF 2.0.9

2008-10-14 Thread Daniel Kulp
My vote is staying +1.The chance of anyone hitting it is small as the JMS versions we hit it with internally are no longer supported. There is kind of a discussion as to why we are testing with such old and unsupported versions of JMS. Basically, any JMS provider released anytime even h

Re: Aegis versus jaxrs

2008-10-14 Thread Benson Margulies
I haven't been able to come up with a reason why Aegis would ever say no to isWriteable or isReadable, but I'll study some more. On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > Sounds good. > Have a look, say, at BinaryProvider unit test or at one of the atom

Re: svn commit: r704738 - in /cxf/branches/2.1.x-fixes: common/common/src/main/resources/schemas/configuration/ common/schemas/src/main/resources/schemas/wsdl/ rt/bindings/xml/src/main/resources/schem

2008-10-14 Thread Willem Jiang
Hi Eric, Why did you not commit the patch into the CXF trunk ? In that way we can easily merge the change into CXF 2.1.x-fixes. Willem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Author: ericjohnson > Date: Tue Oct 14 16:39:35 2008 > New Revision: 704738 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=704738&view=rev

Re: Memory leak in CXF HTTP transport in Solaris ?

2008-10-14 Thread Bharath Ganesh
Yes running without NIO might narrow down.. I saw a related bug[1], but closed saying Not replicable. 1. http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6208845 On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 14 October 2008 2:19:44 pm anoopPrasad wrote: