expect them to work as many
|>> configuration parameters will be specific to box on which the server is
|>> being installed.
|>>
|>> - Original Message -
|>> From: "Peter Antman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>> Sen
nt config files and expect them to work as many
>> configuration parameters will be specific to box on which the server is
>> being installed.
>>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: "Peter Antman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
iguration
>parameters will be specific to box on which the server is being installed.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Peter Antman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSConta
rk as many configuration
parameters will be specific to box on which the server is being installed.
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Antman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvok
ds
>
> marc
>
> |-Original Message-
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter
> |Antman
> |Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:02 AM
> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
> |
>
ntman
|Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:02 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
|
|
|On 10 Jun, marc fleury wrote:
|> |I do like simplicity of management (that why I redo every JBoss
|> |distribution so I can configure it with a single property file - Ant,
|
g and destroying a destination, the publisher
> |> becomes time dependent on when the bean is deployed (does this
> |make sense?).
> |>
> |> Regards,
> |> Hiram
> |>
> |>
> |> - Original Message -
> |> From: "Juha-P Lindfors" <[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 6:34 PM
|> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
|>
|> j
|>>
|>>
|>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, marc fleury wrote:
|>> > to clear fuck-ups... yet if you screw up it does
> From: "Juha-P Lindfors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 6:34 PM
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
>
> j
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, marc fleury wrote:
>> > to clear
ou. If you are creating and destroying a destination, the publisher
becomes time dependent on when the bean is deployed (does this make sense?).
Regards,
Hiram
- Original Message -
From: "Juha-P Lindfors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 01,
|you make too many, and they're repetitive and become boring :)
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
repetition works, Juha
rep
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, marc fleury wrote:
> to clear fuck-ups... yet if you screw up it doesn't hide the mistake, your
> application won't work.
yes... but I want to know exactly *WHY* it doesn't work :)
> |I'd much rather see the lookup fail than have the server hide my fuck ups.
> |Because that
, 2001 5:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
|It will be trial to remove the topic/queue at undeployment,
|if and only if I added it at deploy time
Which is exactly what I am arguing for, glad to see it already coded. If no
topic, create and destroy at
|It will be trial to remove the topic/queue at undeployment,
|if and only if I added it at deploy time
Which is exactly what I am arguing for, glad to see it already coded. If no
topic, create and destroy at deployment boundaries. This enables the "I
listen to the topic as an MDB the server
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Ferguson, Doug wrote:
> It will be trial to remove the topic/queue at undeployment,
> if and only if I added it at deploy time
ok..
> We already display a message at deploytime that says that
> the queue/topic doesn't exist. So it isn't really correct
> that the serve
|> 2- If you miss the spelling.. we should put a message saying "Creating
|> topic" and that's it.. very convenient.
|
|In this case, no, its not very convenient in my opinion. My application
|won't work since the MDB is subscribed to the wrong topic. So why bother
|deploying it at all. It's not g
rd.
marcf
|
|- Original Message -
|From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:20 PM
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
|
|
|> |Its not redundant as there are many provider specific properties
|> |
hat the server hides your fuck ups. It merely deals with them
in an itelligent fashion.
d.
-Original Message-
From: Juha-P Lindfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 4:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, m
Ok, I'm fine with this being an optional behavior. I'm not fine with that
being the only way it is.
- Original Message -
From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JMSCo
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, marc fleury wrote:
> 1- If it is not there, right now we have to manually go and create the damn
> thing, very redundant.
> 2- If you miss the spelling.. we should put a message saying "Creating
> topic" and that's it.. very convenient.
In this case, no, its not very conveni
|Its not redundant as there are many provider specific properties
|that an admin
|has to set: security, clustering, etc. You don't create database
|connection pools
|automatically because there are too many provider specific options that an
|admin familiar with the database has to set. In general
Its not redundant as there are many provider specific properties that an admin
has to set: security, clustering, etc. You don't create database connection pools
automatically because there are too many provider specific options that an
admin familiar with the database has to set. In general the sa
01, 2001 11:40 AM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
|
|
|
|poo poo!
|
|;-D
|
|--Juha
|
|At 07:08 1.6.2001 -0700, you wrote:
|>This is something that was suggested at the Atlanta training and Marc
|liked so
|>you need to slap him around. I was not particularly
he change back.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Juha-P Lindfors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:15 AM
>Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Peter Antman wrote:
>
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Peter Antman wrote:
>
> You see what will happen? Yes, the client will send its messages to one
> topic (no automatic creation here)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Peter Antman wrote:
>
> You see what will happen? Yes, the client will send its messages to one
> topic (no automatic creation here), and the MDB will listen on ANOTHER
> topic, namely a to the system unknown destination, since it was not
> correctly spelled.
>
> What do you
26 matches
Mail list logo
