Bug 778574 (SOA-1046) - Cleanup ESB Programmers Guide
Summary: Cleanup ESB Programmers Guide
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: SOA-1046
Product: JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4
Classification: JBoss
Component: Documentation
Version: 4.2 CP02
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
: 4.2 CP03
Assignee: Jiri Pechanec
QA Contact:
URL: http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/SOA...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-11-21 03:55 UTC by Dana Mison
Modified: 2009-01-14 08:01 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-14 08:01:49 UTC
Type: Task


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker SOA-1046 0 None None None Never

Description Dana Mison 2008-11-21 03:55:17 UTC
Affects: Documentation (Ref Guide, User Guide, etc.)
Date of First Response: 2008-12-16 11:39:28
project_key: SOA

* 15 images that can be replaced with newer versions from the 4.3 guide (verify first)
* 37 codes samples
* fix table 4.1
* fix table 6.1
* fix table 9.1
* fix table 9.2
* fix table 9.3
* fix table 9.4
* fix table 9.5
* fix table 9.6

Comment 1 Dana Mison 2008-12-02 07:10:52 UTC
* 15 images replaced with newer versions from the 4.3 guide
* 37 codes samples cleaned up
* fixed column widths of 8 tables
* chapter 9, image of text editor converted to code sample 

Comment 2 Len DiMaggio 2008-12-16 16:39:28 UTC
Assigning to QE for review



Comment 3 Jiri Pechanec 2009-01-06 14:41:39 UTC
Address on title page
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606-2072USAPhone: +1 919 754 3700
Phone: 888 733 4281
Fax: +1 919 754 3701
PO Box 13588Research Triangle Park, NC 27709USA
- see missing spaces

What is JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform Edition 1.3 on page 2? The version number is confusing

1.2. When would you use an ESB?
The figures below illustrate some concrete examples where JBossESB would be useful. Although
these examples are specific to interactions between participants using non-interoperable JMS
implementations, - this is confusing as the images displays file-based participants and/or interoperable JMS participants

The descrpitons for images are above the images so the page break should not separate the description from the image

4.1 Chapter is wrong there is also PickUpCourier and TwoWayCourier is derived from both courier and pickuponlycourier. Morever TwoWayCourier interface has different definition

6.1.4
The code example contains
<<<<<<< .mine
        // it's out response!
=======
        // it's out response!
>>>>>>> .r12360
        break;
    }

7.2.5 In first example there should be <jms-listener name="helloWorld2" busidref="quickstartEsbChannel2" instead of <jms-listener name="helloWorld2" busidref="quickstartFtpChannel2"
in the cecond there are two listeners defined on the same ftpChannel3
Figure 7.5 - cuts page number in half

7.3.1 and 7.3.2 - the examples are swapped

Note on page 73 - Also, note that since a gateway is not an endpoints, it does not have an Endpoint Reference (EPR) persisted in the registry. Note on page 34 - It is possible that multiple EPRs may be present in the Registry with the same Service Name/Category and that some of these EPRs may not be ESB-aware, e.g., Gateways.
I think these two statements are in contradiction


Comment 4 Len DiMaggio 2009-01-08 15:07:13 UTC
Assigning to Darrin to make the edits.

Comment 5 Len DiMaggio 2009-01-09 13:43:57 UTC
One more change to make:

Len DiMaggio wrote:
>    Did we delete the LongToDateConverter action? It's referenced in the 4.2 CP03 message action guide - but I can't find it in the release...or the ESB javadocs either.

It is a test action and should not be in the docs nor the release.  We
need to remove it from the docs if it is there.

        Kev (Conner)



Comment 6 Dana Mison 2009-01-12 00:29:15 UTC
FIXED Address on title page in page template

CLARIFICATION: Edition 1.3 on page 2 refers to the version of the book

NOT BEING FIXED IN THIS VERSION: 1.2. When would you use an ESB? images

MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR CORRECT CONTENT 4.1 Chapter is wrong there is also PickUpCourier and TwoWayCourier is derived from both courier and pickuponlycourier. Morever TwoWayCourier interface has different definition

FIXED 6.1.4 The code example
FIXED 7.2.5 example2 
FIXED Figure 7.5 - cuts page number in half
FIXED 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 - the examples are swapped

MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED, IS ONE OF THEM OUT OF DATE OR IS ONE MISSING INFORMATION: Note on page 73 - Also, note that since a gateway is not an endpoints, it does not have an Endpoint Reference (EPR) persisted in the registry. Note on page 34 - It is possible that multiple EPRs may be present in the Registry with the same Service Name/Category and that some of these EPRs may not be ESB-aware, e.g., Gateways.
I think these two statements are in contradiction 

Comment 7 Jiri Pechanec 2009-01-13 07:57:26 UTC
FIXED Address on title page in page template - VERIFIED

CLARIFICATION: Edition 1.3 on page 2 refers to the version of the book - OK

NOT BEING FIXED IN THIS VERSION: 1.2. When would you use an ESB? images - OK

MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR CORRECT CONTENT 4.1 Chapter is wrong there is also PickUpCourier and TwoWayCourier is derived from both courier and pickuponlycourier. Morever TwoWayCourier interface has different definition - Please look into ESB source code, more info probably provided by the dev team

FIXED 6.1.4 The code example - VERIFIED
FIXED 7.2.5 example2 - VERIFIED
FIXED Figure 7.5 - cuts page number in half - VERIFIED
FIXED 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 - the examples are swapped - VERIFIED

MORE INFORMATION REQUIRED, IS ONE OF THEM OUT OF DATE OR IS ONE MISSING INFORMATION: Note on page 73 - Also, note that since a gateway is not an endpoints, it does not have an Endpoint Reference (EPR) persisted in the registry. Note on page 34 - It is possible that multiple EPRs may be present in the Registry with the same Service Name/Category and that some of these EPRs may not be ESB-aware, e.g., Gateways. 
I think these two statements are in contradiction - According to my best knowledge this statement is correct  "It is possible that multiple EPRs may be present in the Registry with the same Service Name/Category and that some of these EPRs may not be ESB-aware, e.g., Gateways." which means that the other one should be removed. But this has to be consulted with the dev team

Comment 8 Dana Mison 2009-01-14 00:10:42 UTC
I've created SOA-1125 & SOA-1126 for the remaining two items to be clarified & fixed in the next release

Comment 9 Jiri Pechanec 2009-01-14 08:01:49 UTC
Verified and agree


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