Details

    • Type: Sub-task Sub-task
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 4.0
    • Component/s: ejb31
    • Labels:
      None
    1. OPENEJB-1144.patch
      5 kB
      Thiago Veronezi
    2. OPENEJB-1144.patch
      5 kB
      Thiago Veronezi
    3. OPENEJB-1144.patch
      29 kB
      Thiago Veronezi
    4. OPENEJB-1144.patch
      27 kB
      Thiago Veronezi

      Issue Links

        Activity

        Hide
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment -

        I needed to create 2 extra classes. I didnt get the system working with a common class for both annotations (Stateful and Access timeout) because of the XmlType annotation of the xml dataholder field. For statefultimeaout we have "stateful-timeoutType", and for accesstimeout we have "access-timeoutType"...

        +@XmlType(name = "stateful-timeoutType", propOrder =

        { "timeout", "unit" })
        +@XmlType(name = "access-timeoutType", propOrder = { "timeout", "unit" }

        )

        The unittest was accusing "two fields with the same name".

        ************************************************

        For this first patch, the system is going to support only one value for accesstimeout, instead of the list, as discussed by email. If thats ok, we need to open a new issue to complete this feature to support a list.

        Show
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment - I needed to create 2 extra classes. I didnt get the system working with a common class for both annotations (Stateful and Access timeout) because of the XmlType annotation of the xml dataholder field. For statefultimeaout we have "stateful-timeoutType", and for accesstimeout we have "access-timeoutType"... +@XmlType(name = "stateful-timeoutType", propOrder = { "timeout", "unit" }) +@XmlType(name = "access-timeoutType", propOrder = { "timeout", "unit" } ) The unittest was accusing "two fields with the same name". ************************************************ For this first patch, the system is going to support only one value for accesstimeout, instead of the list, as discussed by email. If thats ok, we need to open a new issue to complete this feature to support a list.
        Hide
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment -

        I had forgot to add the apache header to the new files;
        I also added some changes to the AnnotationDeployer class. Now the system is merging the configuration information from the xml file and the class annotations;

        Show
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment - I had forgot to add the apache header to the new files; I also added some changes to the AnnotationDeployer class. Now the system is merging the configuration information from the xml file and the class annotations;
        Hide
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment -

        Simplifying the test case.

        Show
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment - Simplifying the test case.
        Hide
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment -

        as asked: attach new patches using an absolute path

        Show
        Thiago Veronezi added a comment - as asked: attach new patches using an absolute path
        Hide
        Jarek Gawor added a comment -

        In revision 989259 I added support to the stateful container for per-method @AccessTimeout annotations. I also improved some locking in the stateful container and committed Thiago's test patch.

        Show
        Jarek Gawor added a comment - In revision 989259 I added support to the stateful container for per-method @AccessTimeout annotations. I also improved some locking in the stateful container and committed Thiago's test patch.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Jarek Gawor
            Reporter:
            David Blevins
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development