> That is a problem that will come again, I want to be sure to understand:
> If you add a new link in CVSROOT/modules for jboss-all, a Check Out is
> needed ? an Update is not enough ?
Yes. Checkout is the only time that CVS will pay any attention to the
CVSROOT/modules file. The exact module
OK.
That is a problem that will come again, I want to be sure to understand:
If you add a new link in CVSROOT/modules for jboss-all, a Check Out is
needed ? an Update is not enough ?
Or is it only a problem when running first Check Out and killing it in the
middle (over a 56k phone line, it will
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Vincent Harcq wrote:
> Sorry to disturb you again...
No problem =)
> tomcat is not part of jboss-all-modules, is it normal ?
> jbossmq also is missing.
Currently the only supported plugin or contrib module into the jboss-all
project is plugins/varia. I am not sure what the
When did you last checkout the jboss-all module?
By the way I copied the jboss-dev* list because I think this is going to be
a common problem. It is very easy to solve; simply checkout the module
again. You do no need to get a total clean module, just run the checkout
against your working copy.
It might be trying to recover its naming context, instead of using the
default. AbstractHandle.createInitialContext() probably has an
InitialContextHandle and using it instead of new InitialContext().
Just a guess... could be completly off.
--jason
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Bill Burke wrote:
> Ta
Take a look at EntityMultiInstanceInterceptor.invoke(). That's where it's
being created. I'm a bit confused why all this marshalling is happening
between JNDI and the app server. Aren't they within the same JVM?
Thanks for looking,
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The profile shows two traces from
org.jboss.ejb.plugins.jrmp.interfaces.EntityHandleImpl.getEJBObject()
into JNDI. The first takes 1600 ms, the second 100 ms. The only
difference between the two calls
is the order in which NamingContext.checkRef() is called. How is the
entity being created?
Bi
Yes - oki - I take it offline with Anatoly and others for a week - and then
get back to You all - with first findings ...
/peter_f
on 1-08-13 03.08, marc fleury at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it is a wonderful idea, I do want it as an MBean that can be turned
> off if people want to make
I think it is a wonderful idea, I do want it as an MBean that can be turned
off if people want to make sure it doesn't communicate. Also we should
probably do it through http so that it can go through firewalls and such.
Why don't you take care of it. Design and implement, we will be glad to pu
In my case the fk is compound, which one element is the pk of another table,
which I would assume has an index. I still looks like that is locking the
parent table tough =(
Perhaps I need an explict non-pk index on the pk? That seems a little
silly.
--jason
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Jay Walters w
If you have a foreign key on the field which is in the parent table and you
do not have an index on the field in the parent table (naughty naughty) then
it will lock the entire parent table whenever it needs to check the
referential integrity constraint.
The fix is to index all fields which are r
on 1-08-12 18.00, Anatoly Akkerman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some people on our research group are working on architectures for dynamic
> sharing agreements and their enforcement. As well as security aspects of
> this infrastructure :)
Yes I have ipagents.com for that very reson ... and are
I have just released JBoss-2.4.0.26_Jetty-3.1.RC7-1 to :
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/jboss/JBoss-2.4.0.26_Jetty-3.1.RC7-1.zip
http://www.jboss.org/binary.jsp should update soon
As well as fixing some problems in the integration of JBoss and Jetty,
this release brings us up to date wi
User: jules_gosnell
Date: 01/08/12 16:16:54
Modified:.binary.jsp
Log:
link to latest JBoss/Jetty release
Revision ChangesPath
1.7 +2 -2 newsite/binary.jsp
Index: binary.jsp
===
RC
I can try on Monday, I am tied up at the moment with Buildmagic
documentation. My application is highly dependent on JBossMQ, so you will
be sure to hear from me (good or bad).
--jason
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
> Well, seems like Paul Kendal's las set of changes made away wi
Well, seems like Paul Kendal's las set of changes made away with the pooled
executor.. I've heard some positive feed back on the change (the MQ is alot
faster now). I wish I could get a hold of a good test case that locks up
MQ..
Can anybody send me that test case??
Regards,
Hiram
>From:
User: pkendall
Date: 01/08/12 15:11:29
Modified:src/main/org/jboss/mq/pm/rollinglogged
PersistenceManager.java
Log:
Correct initQueue/restore initialization issue.
Revision ChangesPath
1.2 +8 -3
jbossmq/src/main/org/jboss/mq/pm/rolling
Why did the PooledExecutor stuff go away? I thought JBossMQ was on its way
to stability with these changes, but...
I should try it again just to make sure, but my guess is that it is broken.
=(
--jason
On 12 Aug 2001, Christian Riege wrote:
> hi,
>
> On 10 Aug 2001 12:56:42 -0700, Jason Di
Ya, it is a common windows issue with cvs. It likes to mark lots of stuff
as +x (which does not need to be like .bat and .cmd files), and does not
ever bother with .sh files and such... very annoying.
I would normally just fix the repository files, but with that being hosted
on SF it makes it ha
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:40:06AM -0400, David Jencks wrote:
> On 2001.08.11 01:41:38 -0400 Toby Allsopp wrote:
> > David Jencks wrote:
> > > Are there any plausible uses for the RawXADataSourceLoader?
> >
> > Er, putting XADataSource implementations in JNDI? Its purpose is to
> > instantiate
hi,
On 10 Aug 2001 12:56:42 -0700, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Are you running off of jars built from jbossmq or are you using the version
> that is integrated into jboss?
i'm running off the .jar files built from the jbossmq CVS module. the integrated
version (2.5 and 2.4) still locks up under load f
So then, I have a problem... I'm running on win2k.
Regards,
Hiram
>From: Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] cvs & executable files
>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
>No, sorry I was referring to 'chmod +
22 matches
Mail list logo
