Good question ;-)
but I would guess there is a number of reson:
1. The core developer did not like the JMS spec when it came.
2. XmlBlaster has until today not had an notion of a Queue destination
(that solved now).
3. There is no transaction support in XmlBlaster.
4. I don't think any one has
Bugs item #639064, was opened at 2002-11-15 19:47
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=639064&group_id=22866
Category: JBossMQ
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Yossarian Nosscire (yosarian1)
Assign
=
==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, Standar
Why jboss stops when starting with -c all option when it try to :
13:22:52,604 INFO [ClusterPartition] Connecting to channel
if I remove the cluster-service.xml and jbossha-httpsession.sar it
doesn't stops...
--
| Emerson Cargnin |
| Analista de Sistemas
Bugs item #640195, was opened at 2002-11-18 18:24
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=640195&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Marcin Gryszkalis (dagoon)
Assign
On Thursday 14 November 2002 10:57 am, Bill Burke wrote:
> ... Code is in 3.2 and head under
> server/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/pooled. If you want to know how to
> use this, look at the testsuite under pooled/ test.
Is there any chance that this PooledInvoker in 3.2 can fix my problem
with
Number of tests run: 995
Successful tests: 987
Errors:7
Failures: 1
[time of test: 2002-11-18.11-56 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1]
[java.vendor: Apple Computer, Inc.]
[java
Is ok and easy to use jboss forum at my own company???
--
| Emerson Cargnin |
| Analista de Sistemas Sr. |
| Tel : (051) 3358-4959|
| SICREDI Serviços |
| Porto Alegre - Brasil|
|xx|
---
The Pooled Invoker pools threads up to a maximum limit, after that new
threads are still created but are allowed to die after they service a
request. (I guess I should block, but I didn't want to have a hard limit.)
In other words, this won't help you
But...your problem seems related to JMS.
Hello Emerson,
Monday, November 18, 2002, 9:11:55 PM, you wrote:
ECSS> Is ok and easy to use jboss forum at my own company???
forums are still in dev and are lgpl, but you are welcome
to use them, provide feedbacks and contribute.
--
Best regards,
julienmailto:[EMA
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Bill Burke wrote:
> The Pooled Invoker pools threads up to a maximum limit, after that new
> threads are still created but are allowed to die after they service a
> request. (I guess I should block, but I didn't want to have a hard limit.)
Minor nitpick, but when you reach t
I use a LRU pool. Please see previous emails or examine code if you want
more details.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Adam
> Heath
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] new Pool
what version of jboss forum is currently being used at jboss site?
other question: what module is it on...
julien viet wrote:
Hello Emerson,
Monday, November 18, 2002, 9:11:55 PM, you wrote:
ECSS> Is ok and easy to use jboss forum at my own company???
forums are still in dev and are lgpl, but
Emerson,
HEAD is used
Monday, November 18, 2002, 10:54:14 PM, you wrote:
ECSS> what version of jboss forum is currently being used at jboss site?
ECSS> other question: what module is it on...
ECSS> julien viet wrote:
>> Hello Emerson,
>>
>> Monday, November 18, 2002, 9:11:55 PM, you wrote:
>>
Hello, All!
[This is just a submission to the JBoss Online BrainBase.]
After pulling my hair out the last two days, I fixed my problem.
With my ant/xdoclet build process that put my EJB's in one jar, my
servlets/jsp's in another and EAR'ed the whole thing (as opposed to some
other way I didn't
Bugs item #637269, was opened at 2002-11-12 10:04
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=637269&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Closed
Resolution: Invalid
Priority: 5
Submitted By: rodelor (rodelor)
Assigned to: Adrian Brock
Bugs item #634286, was opened at 2002-11-06 17:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=634286&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Ole Husgaard (sparre)
Assigned to: Bill Burke
Bugs item #634286, was opened at 2002-11-06 02:43
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=634286&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: None
>Status: Closed
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Ole Husgaard (sparre)
Assigned to: Bill Bu
I
agree.. same socket bi-directionality is exotic and does not have to be in the
public interface.
Currently, it's not very nice how the proxy going back client gets
setup. I won't go into details about the current way I do it (it
sucks).
Here's the route I
hope I can change too soon:
1)
19 matches
Mail list logo
