I took a look at the failover demo currently in sandbox, over the weekend. I
made some updates to get it building/running on my Mac OS machine.
I like the demo. It's a good demonstration of Geronimo's capabilities. I'd be
interested in seeing a formal release of the demo. A few demo and Geronim
I think there should be a failover example with finer granularity. Just
like what we did
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I took a look at the failover demo currently in sandbox, over the weekend.
> I made some updates to get it building/running on my Mac OS machine.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
> I think there should be a failover example with finer granularity. Just
> like what we did
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> I took a look at the failover demo currently in sandbox, over the weekend.
>> I made
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
3) Geronimo currently requires multicast for the failover scenario.
This is great. However, we should also offer unicast-based support,
also. I frequently encounter users who are unable to use multicast
in their environments. Providing unic
On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
3) Geronimo currently requires multicast for the failover scenario.
This is great. However, we should also offer unicast-based support,
also. I frequently encounter users who are unable to
On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
3) Geronimo currently requires multicast for the failover
scenario. This is great. However, we should also offer unicast-
based support,
On Jan 26, 2010, at 8:42 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
3) Geronimo currently requires multicast for the failover s
On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 26, 2010, at 8:42 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
3) Geronimo currently requires mult
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:20 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 26, 2010, at 8:42 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
I added some windows script to enable the windows support for failover
example, will check in after some cleanup.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:20 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I took a look at the failover demo currently in sandbox, over the weekend.
> I made some updates to get it building/running on my Mac OS machine.
>
> I like the demo. It's a good demonstration of Geronimo's capabilities. I'd
> be interested in
On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:59 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I took a look at the failover demo currently in sandbox, over the weekend. I
> made some updates to get it building/running on my Mac OS machine.
>
> I like the demo. It's a good demon
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:59 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> I took a look at the failover demo currently in sandbox, over the weekend.
>> I made some updates to get it building/running on
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:49 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> 3) Geronimo currently requires multicast for the failover scenario. This
>> is great. However, we should also offer unicast-based support, also. I
>> frequently encounter users who are
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
There are some discussions before that we should use WADI instead of
discoveryAgent to track cluster nodes.
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Pulling-Geronimo-Configuration-td21962048s134.html
I would like to give it a try instead of implementing ano
I've implemented a WADIdiscoveryAgent. This agent can be either multicast
or unicast based on geronimo WADI clustering setting. The underlying
transportation mechanism are transparent to the agent user.
The WADIdiscoveryAgent based Farming plugin is working well now. I'm
trying to test the st
Added unicast slsb failover support with
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5059?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.ext.subversion%3Asubversion-commits-tabpanel
The OpenEJB client is working well because it supports the clustering
failover with PROVIDER_URL "*ejbd://192.168.1.2:4221*" if
17 matches
Mail list logo
