Hi Bill,
Yes, it's an RH thing.
I got the fix by comparing with 2.4.3
GenericProxy previously did this in
createMarshalledInvocation.
Regards,
Adrian
>From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject
This didn't work? It worked before. Is this a result of the new invocation
layer?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Adrian Brock
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 2:48 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [JBoss-dev] Transactions
on up to the
jboss.xml file.
-dain
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
>
>
> For 3.0
>
> 1. You have to add a r
I don't know if it is related, but it might be. I am running into a
situation where an MDB is set to NotSupported, but I still see messages in
the log about a tx time out:
2001-09-06 19:04:10,292 916321 WARN org.jboss.tm.TxCapsule [Thread-8] () -
Transaction XidImpl [FormatId=257, GlobalId=eng-
retty easy, it's just that it takes time to code, compile
and test.
Bill
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Ferguson, Doug
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:30 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subj
I am interested, do you have any rough ideas for the implementation/ what is
required?
-Original Message-
From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
MethodOnlyLock is a part of
EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
>
>
> Will this be part of 2.4.1?
>
> d.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBo
M
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
>
>
> So I take it that MethodOnlyLock is a transaction setting?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001
So I take it that MethodOnlyLock is a transaction setting?
-Original Message-
From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
Right now, you can use the MethodONly Lock, but I haven&#
Will this be part of 2.4.1?
d.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
Right now, you can use the MethodONly Lock, but I haven't made changes to
jboss.x
Behalf Of marc
> fleury
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
>
>
> |There is a MethodOnlyLock that you can put in for read-only beans, but I
> |eventually want to extend this so that read-only beans nev
|There is a MethodOnlyLock that you can put in for read-only beans, but I
|eventually want to extend this so that read-only beans never become part of
|the transaction.
interesting, and all configurable in jboss.xml yes?
marcf
___
Jboss-development m
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Ferguson, Doug
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 12:20 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
>
>
> >>>
> &g
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Does jboss not throw and exception when a bean is reentrant?
>>>
> Can you explaing this more? What is your version of JBoss?
>
The spec says that a nonReentrant bean should throw and exception when it
tries to reentry
I think jBoss is blocking. We see the same thing on 2.2.2 and 2
]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
Doug,
YOU ARE ON JBOSS DEV
SO YOU USE THE SOURCE
marcf
|-Original Message-
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Ferguson, Doug
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:40 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
>
>
> Are the lists and the forums seems dead this week
>
> Anyway..
>
Doug,
YOU ARE ON JBOSS DEV
SO YOU USE THE SOURCE
marcf
|-Original Message-
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] TRANSACTIONS
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan
|OConnor
|Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:54 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Transactions and Optimization
|
|
|Hi,
|
|Thanks everyone for your help with this. It turned out to be
Hi,
Thanks everyone for your help with this. It turned out to be my bug,
and Ole gave me the clue (so thanks especially to him). By the
way, nothing to do with the web tier which was a red herring
caused by the browser cache and developer (e.g. self) stupidity.
I'll explain the bug to anyone
|I haven't really looked into this yet. I was hoping someone would
|go, "Oh, of course, it must be X," and save me a little work. I'll take
|the trace flag, and Marc's suggestion of using a newer version, and
|Dain's suggestion about where to look, and investigate this. I hope
|tomorrow...
ge
Sorry, I'm an idiot. 2.4-BETA. I'll try to figure this out first thing
tomorrow.
-Dan
On 26 Jul 01, at 15:01, Dan OConnor wrote:
> The problem occurs with 2.2.4-BETA with Tomcat, like you
> can download from the web site.
>
> On 26 Jul 01, at 13:16, marc fleury wrote:
>
> > what version?
>
On 27 Jul 01, at 3:32, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Strange, this should only happen if you are holding
> on to a Transaction reference, and that transaction
> was terminated (committed or rolled back).
Hi Ole,
This is certainly a possible defect in my application, but if this is
the cause,
Hi,
Strange, this should only happen if you are holding
on to a Transaction reference, and that transaction
was terminated (committed or rolled back).
For more information about what is going on in the
default TM, change the trace flag near the top of
org.jboss.tm.TxCapsule to true, and recompil
try to get a repro case
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|fleury
|Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:12 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Transactions and Optimization
|
|
|do me a favor and try 2.5 HEAD
]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Transactions and Optimization
|
|
|On 26 Jul 01, at 12:11, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
|
|> So, it calls getTransaction which will return null if there is no current
|> tx. I think in that case, the tx invocation interceptor creates a new tx.
|
|Which would be the expected behav
On 26 Jul 01, at 12:11, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> So, it calls getTransaction which will return null if there is no current
> tx. I think in that case, the tx invocation interceptor creates a new tx.
Which would be the expected behavior. I might have to set up
Tomcat with my development environme
On 26 Jul 01, at 12:11, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> So, it calls getTransaction which will return null if there is no current
> tx. I think in that case, the tx invocation interceptor creates a new tx.
Which would be the expected behavior. I might have to set up
Tomcat with my development environme
The problem occurs with 2.2.4-BETA with Tomcat, like you
can download from the web site.
On 26 Jul 01, at 13:16, marc fleury wrote:
> what version?
>
> marcf
>
> |-Original Message-
> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan
> |OConnor
> |Sent: Thursday,
what version?
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan
|OConnor
|Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:51 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: [JBoss-dev] Transactions and Optimization
|
|
|Hi guys,
|
|I was hoping someone would know where
Dan,
In org.jboss.ejb.plugins.jrmp.interfaces.GenericProxy we have the following
code:
protected Object invokeContainer(final Object id,
final Method method,
final Object[] args)
throws Throwable
{
30 matches
Mail list logo
