Search Results

Search found 10378 results on 416 pages for 'feature driven'.

Page 27/416 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • Selenium &ndash; Use Data Driven tests to run in multiple browsers and sizes

    - by Aligned
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/Aligned/archive/2013/11/04/selenium-ndash-use-data-driven-tests-to-run-in-multiple.aspxSelenium uses WebDriver (or is it the same? I’m still learning how it is connected) to run Automated UI tests in many different browsers. For example, you can run the same test in Chrome and Firefox and in a smaller sized Chrome browser. The permutations can grow quickly. One way to get them to run in MStest is to create  a test method for each test (ie ChromeDeleteItem_Small, ChromeDeleteItem_Large, FFDeleteItem_Small, FFDeleteItem_Large) that each call  the same base method, passing in the browser and size you’d like. This approach was causing a lot of duplicate code, so I decided to use the data driven approach, common to Coded UI or Unit test methods. 1. Create a class with a test method. 2. Create a csv with two columns: BrowserType, BrowserSize 3. Add rows for each permutation: Chrome, Large | Chrome, Small | Firefox, Large | Firefox, Small | IE, Large | IE, Small | *** 4. Add the csv to the Visual Studio Project. 5. Set the Copy to output directory to Copy always 6. Add the attribute: [DataSource("Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.DataSource.CSV", "|DataDirectory|\\TestMatrix.csv", "TestMatrix#csv", DataAccessMethod.Sequential), DeploymentItem("TestMatrix.csv")] 7. Run the test in the test explorer Example:[CodedUITest] public class AllTasksTests : TasksTestBase { [TestMethod] [TestCategory("Tasks")] [DataSource("Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.DataSource.CSV", "|DataDirectory|\\TestMatrix.csv", "TestMatrix#csv", DataAccessMethod.Sequential), DeploymentItem("TestMatrix.csv")] public void CreateTask() { this.PrepForDataDrivenTest(); base.CreateTaskTest("New Task"); } } protected void PrepForDataDrivenTest() { var browserType = this.ParseBrowserType(Context.DataRow["BrowserType"].ToString()); var browserSize = this.ParseBrowserSize(Context.DataRow["BrowserSize"].ToString()); this.BrowserType = browserType; this.BrowserSize = browserSize; Trace.WriteLine("browser: " + browserType.ToString()); Trace.WriteLine("browser size: " + browserSize.ToString()); } /// <summary> /// Get the enum value from the string /// </summary> /// <param name="browserType">Chrome, Firefox, or IE</param> /// <returns>The browser type.</returns> private BrowserType ParseBrowserType(string browserType) { return (UITestFramework.BrowserType)Enum.Parse(typeof(UITestFramework.BrowserType), browserType, true); } /// <summary> /// Get the browser size enum value from the string /// </summary> /// <param name="browserSize">Small, Medium, Large</param> /// <returns>the browser size</returns> private BrowserSizeEnum ParseBrowserSize(string browserSize) { return (BrowserSizeEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(BrowserSizeEnum), browserSize, true); }/// <summary> /// Change the browser to the size based on the enum. /// </summary> /// <param name="browserSize">The BrowserSizeEnum value to resize the window to.</param> private void ResizeBrowser(BrowserSizeEnum browserSize) { switch (browserSize) { case BrowserSizeEnum.Large: this.driver.Manage().Window.Maximize(); break; case BrowserSizeEnum.Medium: this.driver.Manage().Window.Size = new Size(800, this.driver.Manage().Window.Size.Height); break; case BrowserSizeEnum.Small: this.driver.Manage().Window.Size = new Size(500, this.driver.Manage().Window.Size.Height); break; default: break; } }/// <summary> /// Browser sizes for automation testing /// </summary> public enum BrowserSizeEnum { /// <summary> /// Large size, Maximized to the desktop /// </summary> Large, /// <summary> /// Similar to tablets /// </summary> Medium, /// <summary> /// Phone sizes... 610px and smaller /// </summary> Small } Hope it helps!

    Read the article

  • What can be done in Windows 7 that can't be done in Windows XP?

    - by emddudley
    In Jeff Atwood's latest blog entry on Windows 7 he talks about getting people to move off Windows XP. What, specifically, can be done in Windows 7 that cannot be done in Windows XP? I'm not looking for usability or GUI improvements, unless they happen to significantly reduce the time that it takes to perform tasks that were previously prohibitively time consuming.

    Read the article

  • What language, or language feature, do you wish made it to the mainstream?

    - by Macneil
    Some languages in the past have been influential without ever reaching wide adoption. For example, many languages owe much to the design of Algol 68, even though few compilers were ever written for it. The Dylan language was killed by Apple but had a clean and interesting design. What other programming languages had cool ideas but-- for whatever reasons-- didn't make it to the mainstream? Is there an interesting language feature that you wish your main language had? Is there a feature ahead of its time that we'll soon see used?

    Read the article

  • Event Driven Communication in Game Engine - Yes or No?

    - by Bunkai.Satori
    As I am reading book Game Coding Complete (http://www.amazon.com/Game-Coding-Complete-Third-McShaffry/dp/1584506806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295978774&sr=8-1), the author recommend Event Driven communication among the all game objects and modules. Basicaly, all the living game actors and object should communicate with the key modules (Physics, AI, Game Logic, Game View, etc..) via internal event messaging system. This would mean designing efficient event manager as well. My question is, whether this is proven and recommended approach. If it is not properly designed, it might mean consuming a lot of CPU cycles, which can be used elsewhere. This is especially true, if the game is targetted for mobile platform. What is your opinion and recommendation, please?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to simplify an character -driven game engine to the point it's unnecessary to learn scripting/programming ?

    - by jokoon
    I remember, and I still think, that one cannot even make a prototyped 3D game to test just simple behaviors without using gigantic tools like unity or knowing extensive C++ programming, design pattern, a decent or basic 3D engine, etc. Now I'm wondering, since I know programming, that I'm still more lucky that the ones who need to learn programming prior to know how to make something: even scripted engines such as unity are not for kids, and to my sense they tend to dictate their ways of doing things, which is not the case with engine like ogre or irrlicht. I remember toying a little with the blender game engine, it was possible to link states or something I don't remember very well. Now I'm thinking that character driven games occupies a big part of the game market. Do you think it is a good idea to make a character-controlled oriented game engine which allows only to build AI instead of anything else ?

    Read the article

  • Why don't smart phones have an auto-forget password feature? [closed]

    - by Kelvin
    Storing passwords to external services (e.g. corporate email servers) on smart phones is very insecure, since phones are more easily stolen. Has any vendor implemented a feature to only cache a password in memory for a limited amount of time? After the time period has elapsed, the app would ask for the password again. EDIT: I should've clarified - I'm aware that many (most?) users are lazy and want to just "set it and forget it". The always-remember feature will probably always be present. I was curious about an option to enable auto-forget for the security-conscious.

    Read the article

  • Integrating feature request functionality directly into the business software you write?

    - by Aaron Anodide
    What are relative merits of something like a button on a piece of custom bizware that says, "press me to ask for a feature" or "click here if something didn't work right". The problem I'm trying to remedy is the general lack of formality surrounding feature requests. Most specifically, the rate at which I receive walk-ups from end-users. Taken one at a time, it can be beneficial, but sometimes it can hinder productivity on the larger scale. Has anyone done something like this and has it been a general success or alternately somewhat a waste of time. My instincts are not giving me a hint here.

    Read the article

  • How can I apply Readme Driven Development to an ongoing project?

    - by Metalcoder
    I'm assigned to a project where the goal is to update an existing software. This software was developed in a totally ad hoc manner, which means that any documentation generated is outdated, confused and just plain useless. I do not want to retroactivelly produce all the missing artifacts, since this would just be a waste of time. The code base is ugly, and really need some serious refactoring, but this is another story. What I want is to apply Readme Driven Development to guide this project. So, basically, I want to write a Readme, which will document every change meaningful at the user level. The problem is, I have no idea about how to structure this document. For me, it's pretty clear that it should have a different layout than the traditional Readme. I really want to document changes, and not the current state of affairs. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • What do you do when a user asks for a feature you will not implement?

    - by ifvc
    What do you do when a user asks for a complex feature that you could implement, but you aren't going to do it because 1) it adds unnecessary complexity to other users 2) you are not going to do it as an option either because you don't want your settings panel to be complicated. I wrote an iOS app and there are a few users that asked me for some complex features that I can't do because of the reasons above. Most of the times I just answered them that "We will take that into consideration." Explaining them that they are in the minority that wants this feature is not going to help either. So, what do you do in the case like this?

    Read the article

  • Design of Business Layer

    - by Adil Mughal
    Hi, We are currently revamping our architecture and design of application. We have just completed design of Data Access Layer which is generic in the sense that it works using XML and reflection to persist data. Any ways now we are in the phase of designing business layer. We have read some books related to Enterprise Architecture and Design so we have found that there are few patterns that can be applied on business layer. Table Pattern and Domain Model are example of such patterns. Also we have found Domain Driven Design as well. Earlier we decided to build Entities against table objects. But we found that there is difference in Entities and Value Objects when it comes to DDD. For those of you who have gone through such design. Please guide me related to pattern, practice and sample. Thank you in advance! Also please feel free to discuss if you didn't get any point of mine.

    Read the article

  • how to avoid returning mocks from a mocked object list

    - by koen
    I'm trying out mock/responsibility driven design. I seem to have problems to avoid returning mocks from mocks in the case of finder objects. An example could be an object that checks whether the bills from last month are paid. It needs a service that retrieves a list of bills for that. So I need to mock that service that retrieves the bills. At the same time I need that mock to return mocked Bills (since I don't want my test to rely on the correctness bill implementation). Is my design flawed? Is there a better way to test this? Or is this the way it will need to be when using finder objects (the finding of the bills in this case)?

    Read the article

  • Where and how to validate and map ViewModel?

    - by chobo
    Hi, I am trying to learn Domain Driven Design and recently read that lots of people advocate creating a ViewModels for your views that store all the values you want to display in a given view. My question is how should I do the form validation? should I create separate validation classes for each view, or group them together? I'm also confused on what this would look like in code. This is how I currently think validation and viewmodels fit in to the scheme of things: View (some user input) - Controller - FormValidation(of ViewModel) - (If valid map to ViewModel to Domain Model) - Domain Layer Service - Infrastructure Thanks! P.S. I use Asp.net MVC with C#

    Read the article

  • "Mail merge"-like functionality in Dreamweaver, or in any other web editing tool?

    - by Chris Farmer
    I have inherited several related, low-traffic web sites to manage and edit. These sites are implemented with static html, and they've accrued lots of stray tags and other cruft. I want to try to clean these up and migrate them to some common page template framework to simplify design and data changes and improve overall consistency. The pages will change on the timescale of weeks, and since the current web hosting plan does not support any dynamic server technologies, I was hoping to just use Dreamweaver or some other tool to merge my content data with some templating structure. I'd like to do content updates every several days and then run the content back through my templates, resulting in new static html that I can upload to the host. Do any tools support this kind of poor-man's data-driven web application? Are there better ways to approach this problem, aside from moving to a new hosting plan and using ASP.NET or PHP?

    Read the article

  • OOP App Architecture: Which layer does a lazy loader sit in?

    - by JW
    I am planning the implemention an Inheritance Mapper pattern for an application component http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/inheritanceMappers.html One feature it needs to have is for a domain object to reference a large list of aggreageted items (10,000 other domain objects) So I need some kind of lazy loading collection to be passed out of the aggregate root domain object to other domain objects. To keep my (php) model scripts organised i am storing them in two folders: MyComponent\ controllers\ models\ domain\ <- domain objects, DDD repository, DDD factory daccess\ <- PoEAA data mappers, SQL queries etc views\ But now I am racking my brains wondering where my lazy loading collection sits. Any suggestions / justifications for putting it in one place over another another? DDD = Domain Driven Design Patterns, Eric Evans - book PoEAA = Patterns of Application Architecture Patterns, Martin Fowler - book

    Read the article

  • CBIR isk-daemon software alternatives

    - by postgres
    isk-daemon software permits setting feature parameters? I download desktop version and apparently not! There are alternative libraries or software which is not all automatic? I have a set of images and i only want to pick up an image, extract some features and compare them with this set of image, basing on a similarity metric that give me a percentage result like isk-daemon but with more freedom in settings, better in python!

    Read the article

  • Recommendation for tool/framework that follows the naked objects pattern?

    - by Marcus Munzert
    I am searching for a tool/framework that follows the naked objects pattern and is written in Java. I know about tools like for instance JMatter, Naked Objects and Domain Object Explorer. That's not exactly what I am searching for, though. Open source would be great, but doesn't need to be. My intention is to use that tool/framework for the purpose of model-driven software development to do the modeling part. Ideally, such a tool/framework would provide the option to use JPA to store/load objects.

    Read the article

  • Does Test Driven Development (TDD) improve Quality and Correctness? (Part 1)

    - by David V. Corbin
    Since the dawn of the computer age, various methodologies have been introduced to improve quality and reduce cost. In this posting, I will by sharing my experiences with Test Driven Development; both its benefits and limitations. To start this topic, we need to agree on what TDD is. The first is to define each of the three words as used in this context. Test - An item or action which measures something in some quantifiable form. Driven - The primary motivation or focus of a series of activities (process) Development - All phases of a software project/product from concept through delivery. The above are very simple definitions that result in the following: "TDD is a process where the primary focus is on measuring and quantifying all aspects of the creation of a (software) product." There are many places where TDD is used outside of software development, even though it is not known by this name. Consider the (conventional) education process that most of us grew up on. The focus was to get the best grades as measured by different tests. Many of these tests measured rote memorization and not understanding of the subject matter. The result of this that many people graduated with high scores but without "quality and correctness" in their ability to utilize the subject matter (of course, the flip side is true where certain people DID understand the material but were not very good at taking this type of test). Returning to software development, let us look at some common scenarios. While these items are generally applicable regardless of platform, language and tools; the remainder of this post will utilize Microsoft Visual Studio and Team Foundation Server (TFS) for examples. It should be realized that everyone does at least some aspect of TDD. At the most rudimentary level, getting a program to compile involves a "pass/fail" measurement (is the syntax valid) that drives their ability to proceed further (run the program). Other developers may create "Unit Tests" in the belief that having a test for every method/property of a class and good code coverage is the goal of TDD. These items may be helpful and even important, but really only address a small aspect of the overall effort. To see TDD in a bigger view, lets identify the various activities that are part of the Software Development LifeCycle. These are going to be presented in a Waterfall style for simplicity, but each item also occurs within Iterative methodologies such as Agile/Scrum. the key ones here are: Requirements Gathering Architecture Design Implementation Quality Assurance Can each of these items be subjected to a process which establishes metrics (quantified metrics) that reflect both the quality and correctness of each item? It should be clear that conventional Unit Tests do not apply to all of these items; at best they can verify that a local aspect (e.g. a Class/Method) of implementation matches the (test writers perspective of) the appropriate design document. So what can we do? For each of area, the goal is to create tests that are quantifiable and durable. The ability to quantify the measurements (beyond a simple pass/fail) is critical to tracking progress(eventually measuring the level of success that has been achieved) and for providing clear information on what items need to be addressed (along with the appropriate time to address them - in varying levels of detail) . Durability is important so that the test can be reapplied (ideally in an automated fashion) over the entire cycle. Returning for a moment back to our "education example", one must also be careful of how the tests are organized and how the measurements are taken. If a test is in a multiple choice format, there is a significant statistical probability that a correct answer might be the result of a random guess. Also, in many situations, having the student simply provide a final answer can obscure many important elements. For example, on a math test, having the student simply provide a numeric answer (rather than showing the methodology) may result in a complete mismatch between the process and the result. It is hard to determine which is worse: The student who makes a simple arithmetric error at one step of a long process (resulting in a wrong answer) or The student who (without providing the "workflow") uses a completely invalid approach, yet still comes up with the right number. The "Wrong Process"/"Right Answer" is probably the single biggest problem in software development. Even very simple items can suffer from this. As an example consider the following code for a "straight line" calculation....Is it correct? (for Integral Points)         int Solve(int m, int b, int x) { return m * x + b; }   Most people would respond "Yes". But let's take the question one step further... Is it correct for all possible values of m,b,x??? (no fair if you cheated by being focused on the bolded text!)  Without additional information regarding constrains on "the possible values of m,b,x" the answer must be NO, there is the risk of overflow/wraparound that will produce an incorrect result! To properly answer this question (i.e. Test the Code), one MUST be able to backtrack from the implementation through the design, and architecture all the way back to the requirements. And the requirement itself must be tested against the stakeholder(s). It is only when the bounding conditions are defined that it is possible to determine if the code is "Correct" and has "Quality". Yet, how many of us (myself included) have written such code without even thinking about it. In many canses we (think we) "know" what the bounds are, and that the code will be correct. As we all know, requirements change, "code reuse" causes implementations to be applied to different scenarios, etc. This leads directly to the types of system failures that plague so many projects. This approach to TDD is much more holistic than ones which start by focusing on the details. The fundamental concepts still apply: Each item should be tested. The test should be defined/implemented before (or concurrent with) the definition/implementation of the actual item. We also add concepts that expand the scope and alter the style by recognizing: There are many things beside "lines of code" that benefit from testing (measuring/evaluating in a formal way) Correctness and Quality can not be solely measured by "correct results" In the future parts, we will examine in greater detail some of the techniques that can be applied to each of these areas....

    Read the article

  • Deciding On Features For Open Source

    - by Robz / Fervent Coder
    Open source feature selection is subjective. An interesting question was posed to me recently at a presentation - “How do you decide what features to include in the [open source] projects you manage?” Is It Objective? I’d like to say that it’s really objective and that we vote on features and look at what carries the most interest of the populace. Actually no I wouldn’t. I don’t think I would enjoy working on open source (OSS) as much if it someone else decided on what features I should include. It already works that way at work. I don’t want to come home from work and work on things that others decide for me unless they are paying me for those features. So how do I decide on features for our open source projects? I think there are at least three paths to feature selection and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Feature Selection IS the Set of Features For the Domain Your product, in whatever domain it is in, needs to have the basic set of features that make it answer the needs of that domain. That is different for every product, but if you take for example a build tool, at the very least it needs to be able to compile source. And these basic needed features are not always objective either. Two people could completely disagree what makes for a required feature to meet a domain need for a product. Even one person may disagree with himself/herself about what features are needed based on different timeframes. So that leads us down to subjective. Feature Selection IS An Answer To Competition Some features go in because the competition adds a feature that may draw others away from your product offering. With OSS, there are all free alternatives, so if your competition adds a killer feature and you don’t, there isn’t much other than learning (how to use the other product) to move your customers off to the competition. If you want to keep your customers, you need to be ready to answer the questions of adding the features your competition has added.  Sometimes it’s about adding a feature that your competition charges for, but you add it for free. That draws people to the free alternative – so sometimes that adds a motivation to select a feature. Sometimes it’s because you want those features in your product, either to learn how you can answer the question of how to do something and/or because you have a need for that feature and you want it in your product. That also leads us down the road to subjective. Feature Selection IS Subjective I decide on features based on what I want to see in the product I am working on. Things I am interested in or have the biggest need for usually get picked first, with things that do not interest me either coming later or not at all. Most people get interested in an area of OSS because it solves a need for them and/or they find it interesting. If one of these two things is not happening and they are not being paid, it’s likely that person will move on to something else they find interesting or just stop OSS altogether. OSS feature selection is just that – subjective. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be opinionated and it wouldn’t have a personality about it. Most people like certain OSS because they like where the product is going or the personalities behind the product. For me, I want my products to be easy to use and solve an important problem. If it takes you more than 5-10 minutes to learn how to use my product, I know you are probably going somewhere else. So I pick features that make the product easy to use and learn, and those are not always the simplest features to work on. I work for conventions and make the product opinionated, because I think that is what makes using a product easier, if it already works with little setup. And I like to provide the ability for power users to get in and change the conventions to suit their needs. So those are required features for me above and beyond the domain features. I like to think I do a pretty good job at this. Usually when I present on something I’ve created, I like seeing people’s eyes light up when they see how simple it is to set up a powerful product like UppercuT. Patches And/Or Donations But remember before you say I’m a bad person or won’t use my product, I’ll always accept patches or I might like the feature that you suggest. If you like using the products I provide and they solve a problem for you the two biggest compliments you can provide are either a patch or a donation.  If you think the product is great, but if it could do this one other thing, it would be awesome(!), then consider contacting me and providing a patch, or consider contacting me with a donation and a request to put the feature in. And alternatively, if it’s a big feature, you could hire me to work on the product to make it even better. What If There Are Multiple Committers? In the question of multiple committers, I choose that someone always makes the ultimate decision to select whether a feature should be part of a product or not. But for other OSS project maybe this is not the case. If there is not an ultimate decision maker, then there is the possibility of either adding every feature suggested or having a deadlock on two conflicting features.   So let me pose this question. If you work on Open Source, how do you decide on what features to put in your open source projects? How do you decide what doesn’t belong? What do you do when there are conflicting features?

    Read the article

  • Pros and cons of making database IDs consistent and "readable"

    - by gmale
    Question Is it a good rule of thumb for database IDs to be "meaningless?" Conversely, are there significant benefits from having IDs structured in a way where they can be recognized at a glance? What are the pros and cons? Background I just had a debate with my coworkers about the consistency of the IDs in our database. We have a data-driven application that leverages spring so that we rarely ever have to change code. That means, if there's a problem, a data change is usually the solution. My argument was that by making IDs consistent and readable, we save ourselves significant time and headaches, long term. Once the IDs are set, they don't have to change often and if done right, future changes won't be difficult. My coworkers position was that IDs should never matter. Encoding information into the ID violates DB design policies and keeping them orderly requires extra work that, "we don't have time for." I can't find anything online to support either position. So I'm turning to all the gurus here at SA! Example Imagine this simplified list of database records representing food in a grocery store, the first set represents data that has meaning encoded in the IDs, while the second does not: ID's with meaning: Type 1 Fruit 2 Veggie Product 101 Apple 102 Banana 103 Orange 201 Lettuce 202 Onion 203 Carrot Location 41 Aisle four top shelf 42 Aisle four bottom shelf 51 Aisle five top shelf 52 Aisle five bottom shelf ProductLocation 10141 Apple on aisle four top shelf 10241 Banana on aisle four top shelf //just by reading the ids, it's easy to recongnize that these are both Fruit on Aisle 4 ID's without meaning: Type 1 Fruit 2 Veggie Product 1 Apple 2 Banana 3 Orange 4 Lettuce 5 Onion 6 Carrot Location 1 Aisle four top shelf 2 Aisle four bottom shelf 3 Aisle five top shelf 4 Aisle five bottom shelf ProductLocation 1 Apple on aisle four top shelf 2 Banana on aisle four top shelf //given the IDs, it's harder to see that these are both fruit on aisle 4 Summary What are the pros and cons of keeping IDs readable and consistent? Which approach do you generally prefer and why? Is there an accepted industry best-practice?

    Read the article

  • How can I effectively test against the Windows API?

    - by Billy ONeal
    I'm still having issues justifying TDD to myself. As I have mentioned in other questions, 90% of the code I write does absolutely nothing but Call some Windows API functions and Print out the data returned from said functions. The time spent coming up with the fake data that the code needs to process under TDD is incredible -- I literally spend 5 times as much time coming up with the example data as I would spend just writing application code. Part of this problem is that often I'm programming against APIs with which I have little experience, which forces me to write small applications that show me how the real API behaves so that I can write effective fakes/mocks on top of that API. Writing implementation first is the opposite of TDD, but in this case it is unavoidable: I do not know how the real API behaves, so how on earth am I going to be able to create a fake implementation of the API without playing with it? I have read several books on the subject, including Kent Beck's Test Driven Development, By Example, and Michael Feathers' Working Effectively with Legacy Code, which seem to be gospel for TDD fanatics. Feathers' book comes close in the way it describes breaking out dependencies, but even then, the examples provided have one thing in common: The program under test obtains input from other parts of the program under test. My programs do not follow that pattern. Instead, the only input to the program itself is the system upon which it runs. How can one effectively employ TDD on such a project?

    Read the article

  • Configure WebLogic MDB to listen to Foreing AMQ Server

    - by eliel.lobo
    I'm trying to create an MDB(EJB 3.0) on WebLogic 10.3.5. to listen to a Queue in an external AMQ server. but after much work and combination of tutorials i get the followin error when deployin on WwebLogic. [EJB:015027]The Message-Driven EJB is transactional but JMS connection factory referenced by the JNDI name: ActiveMQXAConnectionFactory is not a JMS XA connection factory. Here is a brief of the work i have done: I have added the corresponding libraries to my WLS classpath (following thos tuturial http://amadei.com.br/blog/index.php/connecting-weblogic-and-activemq) and I have created the corresponding JMS Modules as indicated in the tutorial. As connection factory I have used ActiveMQConnectionFactory initially and ActiveMQXAConnectionFactory later, I also ignome the jms. notation an just put plain names as testQueue. Then create a simple MDB whit the following structure. I explicitly defined "connectionFactoryJndiName" property because otherwise it assumes a WebLogic connection factory which is not found an then raises an error. @MessageDriven( activationConfig = { @ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "destinationType", propertyValue = "javax.jms.Queue"), @ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "destination", propertyValue = "testQueue"), @ActivationConfigProperty(propertyName = "connectionFactoryJndiName", propertyValue = "ActiveMQXAConnectionFactory") }, mappedName = "testQueue") public class ROMELReceiver implements MessageListener { /** * Default constructor. */ public ROMELReceiver() { // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } /** * @see MessageListener#onMessage(Message) */ public void onMessage(Message message) { System.out.println("Message received"); } } At this point I'm stuck with the error mentioned above. Even though I use ActiveMQXAConnectionFactory instead of simply ActiveMQConnectionFactory, JNDI resources tree in web logic server shows org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory as class for my configured connection factory. am i missing something? or is this just a completely wrong way to connect WebLogic whith AMQ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >