Dain,
I agree, this is some of a hack, but any trick would be hack because it
requires the container to implicitly do some call. What your container
bytecode implementation generates is something like that (very pseudo-code
as we all know it is something like "invoke"):
public void setXXX
=
==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
Bugs item #676533, was opened at 2003-01-28 19:15
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=676533&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: CVS HEAD
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Jeremy Boynes (jboynes)
Assigned to: Jeremy
Bugs item #676522, was opened at 2003-01-28 18:31
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=676522&group_id=22866
Category: JBossWeb
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Stefan Reich (sreich)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonym
=
==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
> We already agreed with you that in one vm
> association/dissociation are
> essentially free and if they aren't it is a bug. I'm saying that
oh ok :) sorry jumpy. yes association dissociation should be clearly
exposed JTA calls. Spec bug.
> importing a tx when you don't need to is NOT free
WS,
The simple answer to this one is when connecting to the web-console user
the full ip addess insted of localhost
I am currently looking into this problem to determine the best way to fix
it. what is happening is, when the applet tries to connect back to the server it
is using the real i
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 18:20
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
Thanks, David and
Lennart for your help.
After I catch
CreateException and call setRollbackOnly, the problem is
solved.
Actually, I thought
CreateException should be a system exception and should cause a rollback to
the transaction. But it is actually an Application
Exception.
Thanks
Hello,
I've posted a message in the "Management on JBoss"
forum but my message isn't displayed :(
So here is my question:
I've started JBoss and then accessed the web-console
with http://localhost:8080/web-console/
and then, I get the following exception:
java.security.AccessControlException: ac
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 18:20
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
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 01:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
Roger that. Check 5622.
The
condor is moving, I repeat the condor is moving
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Rolando MorejonSent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:32
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
[JBoss-dev] is ok
Bugs item #669112, was opened at 2003-01-16 15:49
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=669112&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
>Priority: 7
Submitted By: Andrew Everitt (andieveritt)
Assigned to: No
Bugs item #676243, was opened at 2003-01-28 18:23
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=676243&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Andrew Everitt (andieveritt)
Assigned to: Nob
confirm 624857MSN. Más Útil Cada Día Haz clic aquí smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
__
confirm 629849Charla con tus amigos en línea mediante MSN Messenger: Haz clic aquí with MSN 8.
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 09:07 AM, marc fleury wrote:
Agreed. In this case there is a strong performance reason to
split the
code into two interceptors:
The point is that the call in the interceptors is JUST dissaciation and
association. The mumbo jumbo we are talking about (whatever
MSN Fotos: la forma más fácil de compartir e imprimir fotos. Haz clic aquí Get 2 months FREE*.
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:52 AM, Themba Mbatha wrote:
I never really liked this idea.
By this I'm assuming you are referring to the JavaBean listener
interfaces (PropertyChangeListener and PropertyVetoChangeListener) as a
possible solution.
No, that would be super cool. I just don'
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
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 12:45 AM, David Jencks wrote:
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 compli
The ChangeLog is the responsibility of individual JBoss developer CVS
developers as they fix bugs and add new features. Some are very good about
submitting some aren't.
I know for 3.0.6 there were a bunch of Jetty fixes in the space of AJP 13.
I believe there also may be some small performance im
Bugs item #673249, was opened at 2003-01-23 13:20
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
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:07 AM, marc fleury wrote:
Agreed. In this case there is a strong performance reason to
split the
code into two interceptors:
The point is that the call in the interceptors is JUST dissaciation and
association. The mumbo jumbo we are talking about (whateve
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 13:20
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
>
> Agreed. In this case there is a strong performance reason to
> split the
> code into two interceptors:
The point is that the call in the interceptors is JUST dissaciation and
association. The mumbo jumbo we are talking about (whatever it means to
suspend and resume a transaction) is not r
Bugs item #673249, was opened at 2003-01-23 13:20
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
Patches item #676062, was opened at 2003-01-28 12:58
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376687&aid=676062&group_id=22866
Category: JBossCMP
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Simone (milasx)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous
=
==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
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 10:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 10:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 11:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 10:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 11:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
tisdagen den 28 januari 2003 kl 02.38 skrev Fan Yang:
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-attributeall set to Required.)
Bugs item #675987, was opened at 2003-01-28 10:47
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675987&group_id=22866
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Roland Haag (rhaag)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (n
Bugs item #675984, was opened at 2003-01-28 10:41
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=675984&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Rickard Öberg (rickardoberg)
Assigned to: Nob
Patches item #675962, was opened at 2003-01-28 08:34
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376687&aid=675962&group_id=22866
Category: JBossServer
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Kristoffer Gronowski (stoffeg)
> I never really liked this idea.
By this I'm assuming you are referring to the JavaBean listener
interfaces (PropertyChangeListener and PropertyVetoChangeListener) as a
possible solution.
> I think you should provide a concrete
> setPostalCode (String code) method and if the data is valid you wo
45 matches
Mail list logo
