Re: Dev - Replacing JOTM and Carol...

Posted by Andrew Zeneski on
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-Replacing-JOTM-and-Carol-tp167754p167760.html

Again, tell me why we don't just comment out Carol, throw in a quick  
RMI Registry class (Free ones all over the place, I have one, MX4J  
has one) and use continue to use JOTM (BSD License)??

On May 1, 2006, at 4:58 AM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Okay, cute... I'll look into that. I'm 99% sure I know why they  
> would use that package: because the Geronimo code has some  
> protected fields or methods that they need to use in order to do  
> what they do. This doesn't work with certain security setting in  
> Java, but is a nice trick that can be made to work without changing  
> the "other project".
>
> We did this for a while with BeanShell until it became a problem  
> and now just use a modified version of BeanShell (to support  
> caching of interpreted scripts).
>
> -David
>
>
> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> thanks for pushing this work forward!
>> I did some research about the GeronimoTransactionManager class and  
>> I've
>> discovered that it is one of three classes implemented in the Jencks
>> project to extend the Geronimo transaction manager; here is the  
>> link to
>> the source code in CVS:
>>
>> http://cvs.jencks.codehaus.org/jencks/src/main/java/org/apache/ 
>> geronimo/transaction/context/GeronimoTransactionManager.java?
>> view=markup
>>
>> I really don't know why they implemented it in the
>> org.apache.geronimo.transaction.context package instead of in the
>> org.jencks... package, however the source code are in the jencks
>> distribution.
>>
>> Hope this helps... I'd love to help you more than this, but I'm  
>> still a
>> bit confused by the transaction manager framework, sorry!
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> I started looking into this and put some basic stuff in place,  
>>> but with no real success. The example from Jencks was interesting  
>>> but used a class called GeronimoTransactionManager that must have  
>>> been from some pre-1.0 release as it does not exist in 1.0 or in  
>>> the current Geronimo SVN code base.
>>>
>>> I randomly tried some objects found looking directly at the  
>>> Geronimo JavaDocs, but with no success. In a cursory review I  
>>> also could not find anything along these lines in the Geronimo docs.
>>>
>>> The infrastructure I played with is in SVN. Just change the  
>>> transaction-factory tag at the beginning of the entityengine.xml  
>>> file to use the now commented out geronimo one. Changes can go in  
>>> the GeronimoTransactionFactory class, which is direct for now  
>>> rather than using JNDI. I figure we can worry about that later  
>>> and the direct model in the Entity Engine is easier for now.
>>>
>>> If anyone has any ideas or resources related to this that would  
>>> be great...
>>>
>>> Note that none of this attempts to replace Minerva (XA aware  
>>> connection pool) yet, just starting with the transaction manager  
>>> for now. Of course, if anyone has any ideas about that part of  
>>> Geronimo it would also be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Note also that this is an attempt to use the embedded approach to  
>>> have certain parts of Geronimo running in OFBiz rather than  
>>> deploying OFBiz in Geronimo (which isn't trivial with 1.0, but  
>>> may be easier with later Geronimo releases).
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev