> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
> Jencks
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is still the best thing
> since sliced bread
>
>
> On 2003.02.21 18:58 Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
> Haynie
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
>
>
> Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR agains
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1102
Successful tests: 1095
Errors:7
Failures: 0
[time of test: 2003-02-22.02-24 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1_
Jeff,
Don't let these guys push you around. Bill's just in a pissy mood
today.
-dain
On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 06:01 PM, Jeff Haynie wrote:
Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR against what David is
saying. I'm merely saying you should separate the concerns - but it
seems like t
On 2003.02.21 18:58 Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Hiram
> > Chirino
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:44 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really
Only RemoteException or its subclasses should be flagged as errors. There
is nothing wrong with a local interface throwing a checked Exception.
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
- Original Message -
From: "Dain Sundstr
=
==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
I'm working on fixing the exception tests and I have run into a problem
with the verifier. I am getting the following warning that is causing
the deployment to fail:
Bean : ExceptionTesterEJB
Method : public abstract void ejbExceptionInStore() throws Exception
Section: 7.10.7
Warning: The met
--- Bill Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This might sound a little crazy... but how about
> > allowing multiple server-side interceptor stacks
> per
> > object? One for local access, one for stuff over
> IIOP
> > (that does tx the ots way), one for stuff over
> JRMP
> > etc.
> >
>
Oh, I buy into it - and I'm neither for OR against what David is
saying. I'm merely saying you should separate the concerns - but it
seems like that is obvious and redudant (although not so apparent with
all the back in forth) to you.
As you know, I don't work for Jboss Group. I'm just merely try
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
>
>
>
> --- Bill Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
>
>
> > > I have to disagree. Take a higher level loo
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff
> Haynie
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
>
>
> Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it other
--- Bill Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would like to note that my future plans for this
> involve method specific
> > interceptor chains with a variety of "client side"
> and "server side" tx
> > interceptors, each one performing half of the
> TxSupport work. No maps,
> > just di
Thanks. Sorry for this. +1 Guiness for me ;-)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Jeremy Boynes
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] (no subject)
>
>
> This should be fixed now.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ole
> Husgaard
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really good
>
>
> The OTS policy only supports the equivalents
> > I have to disagree. Take a higher level look at
> the
> > basics: All client proxies have a dependency on
> their
> > corresponsing server side stub. You can't mix a
>
> Yes, obviously, but the old tx client proxy just
> stuffed the tx context in
Orthoganal problem. The ability to have sma
>
>
> I would like to note that my future plans for this involve method specific
> interceptor chains with a variety of "client side" and "server side" tx
> interceptors, each one performing half of the TxSupport work. No maps,
> just different specialized interceptors, with different interceptors
Whoops, forgot to send this too.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
> Jencks
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
>
>
> I'm getting kind
Yes - but you guys don't seem to buy into it otherwise you won't be
talking about where and how tx or remoting should go into AOP.
Maybe I'm missing something.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill
Burke
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 5:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TxInterceptor split is really really bad
>
>
>
> I have to disagree. Take a higher level look
>
> I personally don't think AOP should have anything related to
> transactions, remoting, etc. I think that should be pushed up into the
> functional areas that apply those specific semantics to the subsystems
> since they are quite different depending on the subsystem (JMS, EJB,
> etc) and locati
I think AOP has a separate functional requirement from Remoting and
should be separated.
Remoting depends (potentially) on AOP.
AOP should be the instrumenting, invocation and interception framework.
Remoting should then add any semantics for transport and discovery.
Individual subsystems (JMX,
I have to disagree. Take a higher level look at the
basics: All client proxies have a dependency on their
corresponsing server side stub. You can't mix a
different proxys and stub types. Therefore it is ok
for a client side interceptor to have a dependency on
the server side interceptor.
Can y
I'm getting kind of tired of what I find vague complaints without detailed
explanations of the framework in which you think there might be a problem.
I think remote AOP is going to need;
1. some representation of the object you are calling
2. client interceptors. For instance, to get the secur
Ok, maybe I shouldn't have said "fatally flawed". But again, my gut tells
me that it is bad to have a dependency between server and client
interceptors if it is not absolutely needed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill
> Burke
> Sent:
I've been thinking and should have posted this before. Your design is
fataly flawed when I start applying it to the AOP framework. Your design
assumes that there is a proxy sitting in front of everything. In AOP this
is not the case. If you look at
varia/src/org/jboss/aop/plugins/TxSupport.java
JBoss daily test results
SUMMARY
Number of tests run: 1043
Successful tests: 1038
Errors:2
Failures: 3
[time of test: 2003-02-21.12-05 GMT]
[java.version: 1.3.1]
Bugs item #690177, was opened at 2003-02-20 18:24
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=690177&group_id=22866
Category: JBoss-IDE
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 9
Submitted By: Hans Dockter (hans_d)
Assigned to: Hans Do
Title: Message
OK,
this is fixed.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeff HaynieSent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:54
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [JBoss-dev] Jboss-mx errors
i
did a brand new checkout into a
Title: Message
i did
a brand new checkout into a clean directory.
i'll
fix the build.
thanks,
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bill BurkeSent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:49
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [J
jmx/build.xml probably needs to reference dom4j.jar. I just check
out last night at 10 pm with no problems. Did you do an update instead of
a clean checkout? I don't think update grabs thirdparty jars for some
reason.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAI
I'm getting a bunch of these errors while building
fresh checkout of jboss-mx from HEAD. Anyone have any ideas?
[execmodules]
C:\cvs-jboss-head\jboss-mx\jmx\src\main\org\jboss\mx\metadata\JBossXMBean10.java:37:
package org.dom4j does not exist[execmodules] import
org.dom4j.Document;[execmo
Bugs item #690789, was opened at 2003-02-21 17:47
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=376685&aid=690789&group_id=22866
Category: JBossMQ
Group: v3.0 Rabbit Hole
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: David Saslawsky (saslawsky)
Assigned
On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 16:52, James Cooley wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> This was not a requirement for the servlet and I haven't included it -
> see previous mails. Scott is deciding how we will integrate the servlet
> into the JBoss startup script and retire the WebService. He might best
> explain
Hi Peter,
This was not a requirement for the servlet and I haven't included it -
see previous mails. Scott is deciding how we will integrate the servlet
into the JBoss startup script and retire the WebService. He might best
explain how this will be addressed.
Rgds,
James
Peter Antman wrote:
Hi,
just curious: will this work with a scoped ear-deployer. How are EJBS:
deployed from within a scoped ear-deployer made available to the servlet
classloader? With WebService this was done through addClassLoader(), but
how is it done in this servlet aproach?
//Peter
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 19:33,
37 matches
Mail list logo
