Bug 452893 - Existing Entity Commands chapter specifies classes in wrong, outdated packages
Existing Entity Commands chapter specifies classes in wrong, outdated packages
Product: JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 4
Classification: JBoss
Component: doc-Server_Configuration_Guide (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Isaac Rooskov
Content Services Development
: Documentation
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-06-25 12:50 EDT by Aleksander Adamowski
Modified: 2015-08-06 01:54 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-06-25 22:27:35 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Aleksander Adamowski 2008-06-25 12:50:32 EDT
Description of problem:

In the Server Configuration Guide, chapter "15.11.1. Existing Entity Commands"
specifies entity-command definitions along with corresponding classes.

The classes are listed in wrong packages (probably leftover from an older JBoss
release), e.g. org.jboss.ejb.plugins.cmp.jdbc.hsqldb.JDBCHsqldbCreateCommand
should now be org.jboss.ejb.plugins.cmp.jdbc.keygen.JDBCHsqldbCreateCommand.

Generally, all vendor specific create command classes seem to have been moved
into org.jboss.ejb.plugins.cmp.jdbc.keygen, judging from SVN trunk:
Comment 1 Isaac Rooskov 2008-06-25 22:27:35 EDT
Closing this bugzilla and migrating the issue to JIRA for tracking within the
scope of the projects bug tracking. 

This issue can now be followed publicly via the following link:
Comment 2 IBM Mirproxy 2008-08-11 16:10:41 EDT
=Comment: #0=================================================
mirproxy <mirproxy@us.ibm.com> -
Outside it is raining and thundering.

The grass and trees are happy.
Bug received in the Red Hat Bugzilla test system:

------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-07-31 11:27:16 EDT-------
Attempt to assign the bug to bugproxy.
Added a text attachment to the LTC bug.
However, I suspect attachments are not being extracted just yet, so this will not appear in the RH bug.
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-07-31 11:53:21 EDT-------
Testing a code change on the Red Hat Bugzilla side.
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-07-31 16:30:11 EDT-------
Try a state change ... ON_DEV ... see what happens ...
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:00:30 EDT-------
Close out this test bug. Plan for another w/o attachments.
Closing this test bug.
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:30:34 EDT-------
*** Bug 452895 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
---Problem Description---
Another bug to test interaction with Red Hat Bugzilla 3.2
... getting sleepy ...

Contact Information = n/a

---uname output---

Machine Type = n/a

A debugger is not configured

Java Version: n/a

-Note: Problem does not occurs with the JIT compiler disabled
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:11:56 EDT-------
Test status change, owner change, severity change, target milestone change
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:20:42 EDT-------
Testing the POST status.
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:23:11 EDT-------
Try CLOSED CANTFIX ... check the mirroring effect.
Can the Red Hat bug be reopened?
------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:25:24 EDT-------
Anticipating the next request, the bug is reopened.
Test closing this bug as a dup of another.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 452893 ***

------- Comment From bugproxy@us.ibm.com 2008-08-01 10:59:56 EDT-------
The mirroring for the duplicate bug was obsoleted.
Inspect to determine where this comment is mirrored to.
Comment 3 IBM Bug Proxy 2008-08-11 16:27:53 EDT
My apologies; please disregard Comment #2. This was a test against an identically numbered bug in the pre-release Red Hat Bugzilla 3.1.4 test environment and should not have been applied to this bug.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.