Re: TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?

Talk about putting the cart before the horse: they're going for the "Big Bang Architecture" instead of growing it organically. Sounds like a disaster. SOA and performance can't be used in the same sentence unless it's a joke. WS-* are re-inventions of everything that REST and HTTP(s) does quite

Re: ActiveMQ Artemis?

@Jonathan: if you have a sampe ready to run I can check but the idea is to track connection usage and "disconnect" when needed - https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/resource/spi/DissociatableManagedConnection.html Le 24 oct. 2015 16:22, "Jonathan S. Fisher"

Re: TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?

Open source != free consulting ;) +1 ask precise questions or hire a consultant. -- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone. > On Oct 24, 2015, at 05:19, mikaelarhelger wrote: > > I shall be donating US$5.00 (via PayPal) to anyone (or designated cause via > PayPal)

Re: ActiveMQ Artemis?

Ah, thanks, found it: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/examples/features/sub-modules/artemis-ra-rar/src/main/resources/ra.xml On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Clebert wrote: > >

Re: ActiveMQ Artemis?

Hey Romain, I'm trying to figure out what exactly the javax.resource.spi.DissociatableManagedConnection interface is *supposed* to do. Any clues? As an experiment, I used the ConnectorZ project as a test bed at had it implement that method... TomEE still proxied the connection class, so it might

Re: ActiveMQ Artemis?

Also, to ask Clebert a stupid question... I'm looking at the activemq-ra project here: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/master/artemis-ra/src/main And I don't see a rar JCA descriptor file nor the JCA annotations on the connection classes. Am I missing something obvious? On Sat,

Re: ActiveMQ Artemis?

https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/artemis-ra/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/ra/ActiveMQRAConnectionFactory.java ??? I won't be able to come to the computer this weekend ... I Will (or someone else might before then ) look on it properly on Monday. There is

SV: Re: TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?

@jonathan, Like your comments. I've seen several RFQ's like this before and I still wonder why architects try to scale horisonal but ends up being vertical. TomEE is by far the best and most configurable plattform available in horizontal architecture.  I've done a lot of deployments reasonably

Re: ActiveMQ Artemis?

I was using https://github.com/AdamBien/connectorz Files project as a testbed. I made the Bucket interface extend the DissociatableManagedConnection interface and TomEE still proxied it... oh well. I'm going to try and have the Artemis MCF expect the interface rather than the impl class

Re: TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?

On Oct 24, 2015 7:09 AM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" wrote: > > Hi Mikael > > Let s try to answer even if it looks like a spam: if you ask precise > questions instead of asking us to do your work we can refine what we > already said you if needed. +1 Does look like spam.

TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?

I shall be donating US$5.00 (via PayPal) to anyone (or designated cause via PayPal) giving me the right answer (because I do not have the answer myself): Here is a list of requirements received from a potential user of an Application Server. They cannot tell us what

Re: TomEE vs commercial offering: No need?

Hi Mikael Let s try to answer even if it looks like a spam: if you ask precise questions instead of asking us to do your work we can refine what we already said you if needed. Le 24 oct. 2015 11:31, "mikaelarhelger" a écrit : > I shall be donating US$5.00 (via PayPal)