jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Serge Huber <shub...@jahia.com>
Subject Testing with Websphere 6.1 & Oracle 11g
Date Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:13:52 GMT
Hi Jackrabbit developers,

I have been quite passive on this list for a long time, but I have finally
been able to work with Jackrabbit a bit more, and I really need your help at
this point :)

I have been trying to deploy Jackrabbit on one of the most unforgiving
platforms : Websphere 6.1 and Oracle 9/10/11g. I have struggled quite a lot,
and I had to revert to webapp-based deployment because the JCA deployment
model just didn't fit well with the software I'm trying to integrate with (I
was having issues with the authentification&authorization that was not
possible to integrate into the connector).

I managed to make most of it work, but I am now facing an issue that looks
like an architectural issue, which is why I am writing here. Basically the
problem I am seeing is that Websphere is complaining about accessing JNDI
resources outside of container-managed threads. In the specific case I am
investigating, this happens in the ObservationDispatcher class, that creates
a thread for handling the notifications. Websphere refuses to serve the
managed datasource because the threads are not managed by him.

>From my point of view I have the following options :
- directly connect Jackrabbit to the database, without using the container
datasource and using JDBC connections
- modifying the thread creation in Jackrabbit to maybe use something like
the CommonJ Workmanager interface that allows the creation of contained
managed threads

The first solution I keep as a last solution, because I think that clients
using Websphere will not like the idea of having JDBC connections that they
have no control over. So I'd prefer to work on the thread creation part, but
here I have the problem that the ObservationDispatcher class, from what I
could understand of the source code, is not pluggeable so I couldn't replace
it without really patching the code.

Does this analysis look right ? Did I miss something ?

I should point out that I am more than willing to do whatever work could
help this issue out, as I am under a rather aggressive timeline to make all
of this work.

Best regards,
  Serge Huber.

View raw message