On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 12:47 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 09:36 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 07:39 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Wow, I had no idea it was this complicated. Anyway the real problem
is a Dynamic MBean has a setAttr
Bugs item #675932, was opened at 2003-01-28 08:15
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675932&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
>Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Moi (vincent_aumont)
>Assigned to: Alexey L
Bugs item #675932, was opened at 2003-01-27 22:15
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675932&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Moi (vincent_aumont)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymo
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 09:36 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 07:39 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Wow, I had no idea it was this complicated. Anyway the real problem
is a Dynamic MBean has a setAttributes method to group together an
entire set of attribute changes
If you're in there David, there's a few things that would be really cool to
implement. It would be nice if the pools could be configured to diagnose
and point out through a stack trace resource leaks. Like, connections never
being closed, ResultSets and Statements never being closed, that sort of
Show your code. Do you call setRollbackOnly when you get the createException?
david jencks
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 08:38 PM, Fan Yang wrote:
Hi, all,
I have a CMP transaction problem and can not find correct answer from the forum.
I appreciate very much if anyone can give me a clue.
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 08:03 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I completely agree that the extra suspend/ resume should not cause any
performance degradation. The problem with that code it is fucking
hard to read. Your stare at it for a while going what the fuck is he
doing here and then y
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 07:39 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Wow, I had no idea it was this complicated. Anyway the real problem is
a Dynamic MBean has a setAttributes method to group together an entire
set of attribute changes in one operator, but when we go to standard
mbeans we lose tha
Bugs item #674432, was opened at 2003-01-24 18:56
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=674432&group_id=22866
Category: JBossMX
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Stefan Reich (sreich)
Assigned to
Hi,
all,
I have a CMP
transaction problem and can not find correct answer from the forum.
I appreciate very
much if anyone can give me a clue.
I have a
stateless session bean and 2 CMP entity beans. (trans-attribute
all set to
Required.).
In the session bean,
I create 2 entity beans
I think if the only purpose of this class is to let a few people get
away with writing wrong code, while penalizing the scalability of 99%
of the existing beans I would be fine with yanking it. Holding
references to connections between EJB invocations is simply evil.
Stefan
On Monday, Jan 27,
I completely agree that the extra suspend/ resume should not cause any
performance degradation. The problem with that code it is fucking hard
to read. Your stare at it for a while going what the fuck is he doing
here and then you finally realize that they always suspend the tx at
the beginnin
I never really liked this idea. I think you should provide a concrete
setPostalCode (String code) method and if the data is valid you would
call setPostalCodeField (String code) or setPostalCode_(String code).
I think this type of validation is part of the business logic.
Alternatively, ther
Wow, I had no idea it was this complicated. Anyway the real problem is
a Dynamic MBean has a setAttributes method to group together an entire
set of attribute changes in one operator, but when we go to standard
mbeans we lose that concept because we only have a bunch of setters.
That sucks.
W
mail problems, maybe this try will work
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:15:08 PM US/Eastern
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Oracle specific jca adapter
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 04:46 PM, Sonnek, Ryan wrote:
david
mail problems, maybe this try will work
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:01:50 PM US/Eastern
To: Stefan Reich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how's ecperf going?
If this is providing a performance bottleneck I think
Bugs item #673249, was opened at 2003-01-23 11:20
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=673249&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Matt Cleveland (groovesoftware)
Assigned
FWIW, I agree 100% with you on this marc
david jencks
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 05:34 PM, marc fleury wrote:
In all of the other application servers I have been working on
TransactionManager.resume() and suspend() are expensive operations,
since the JTA spec version 1.0.1 (section 3.2.3)
> In all of the other application servers I have been working on
> TransactionManager.resume() and suspend() are expensive operations,
> since the JTA spec version 1.0.1 (section 3.2.3) requires the TM to
> delist/enlist every resource that takes part in the
> transaction, which
> is costly. I
Bugs item #62, was opened at 2003-01-12 15:08
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=62&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Loz (lozzer)
Assigned to: Adri
These changes have been made in the HEAD, Branch_3_0 and Branch_3_2 branches.
++jeff
On Monday 20 January 2003 03:44 pm, Jeffrey Wescott wrote:
> All:
>
> I haven't heard anything back about my previosu message regarding the
> PointBase mappings. Unless I hear an objection by the EOD today, I'm
In all of the other application servers I have been working on
TransactionManager.resume() and suspend() are expensive operations,
since the JTA spec version 1.0.1 (section 3.2.3) requires the TM to
delist/enlist every resource that takes part in the transaction, which
is costly. If it is done
david,
do you have any ideas on how i could implement this scenerio?
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Sonnek, Ryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:21 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Oracle specific jca adapter
thank you for all of your help
It's the Map "objectToConnetionManagerMap". I moved some null checks
out of the synchronized blocks, but there is not much more to optimize.
I'll check the changes in when I have the time.
Stefan
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:13:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Re: how's ecperf going?
F
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
> fleury
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Stefan Reich'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] RE: how's ecperf going?
>
>
> > yes, if you take a look at the code, before the
I am all for it. The more people run Ecperf on various platforms and
JDKs, the better for the quality.
Stefan
Message: 6
From: "Sacha Labourey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Re: how's ecperf going?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:45:58 +0100
Bugs item #62, was opened at 2003-01-12 10:08
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=62&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Loz (lozzer)
Assigned to: Adri
When will Release Notes for JBoss 3.0.6 be made available?
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Jbos
Bugs item #673249, was opened at 2003-01-23 11:20
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=673249&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Matt Cleveland (groovesoftware)
Assigned
Bugs item #673249, was opened at 2003-01-23 11:20
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=673249&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Matt Cleveland (groovesoftware)
Assigned
> yes, if you take a look at the code, before the switch
> statement that distinguishes the cases between the different
> transaction attributes, we start by a tx.suspend() and, a few
> lines after, a tx.resume() if it was a REQUIRES tag for example, etc.
I know I wrote the original version of
yes, if you take a look at the code, before the switch statement that
distinguishes the cases between the different transaction attributes, we
start by a tx.suspend() and, a few lines after, a tx.resume() if it was a
REQUIRES tag for example, etc.
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTEC
> > * TxInterceptorCMP suspends and resumes a transaction in all cases,
> > sometimes even twice. This can be very expensive, especially with
> > global transactions.
> >
>
> ?? Can you point this out?
for the nth time we are having this discussion.
NO, the 'suspend/resume' is NOT A LIFECYCL
Hi all;
What would be the procedure if one is interested in implementing a
feature request? There is a feature request (647669) that I also need
a.s.a.p. and I'm prepared to contribute the implementation once I'm
done.
Regards.
---
This SF.
34 matches
Mail list logo
