1 Reply Latest reply on Oct 1, 2014 8:24 AM by wdfink

    problem with jboss-ejb3.xml

    flamant

      Hello,

       

      I work with JBoss eap 6.2

       

      I put a @Pool annotation on a class

       

      @Stateless

      @Pool(value="PoolSize500")

      public class LibrarySessionBean implements LibrarySessionBeanRemote {

       

      To define the Pool I tried to create the file jboss-ejb3.xml

       

      <?xml version="1.1" encoding="UTF-8"?>

      <jboss:ejb-jar xmlns:jboss="http://www.jboss.com/xml/ns/javaee"

                     xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee"

                     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"

                     xmlns:c="urn:clustering:1.0"

                     xmlns:p="urn:ejb-pool:1.0"

                     xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.jboss.com/xml/ns/javaee http://www.jboss.org/j2ee/schema/jboss-ejb3-2_0.xsd http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-jar_3_1.xsd"

                     version="3.1"

                     impl-version="2.0">

          <enterprise-beans>

              <session>

                  <ejb-name>LibrarySessionBean</ejb-name>

                  <ejb-class>com.tutorialspoint.sessionbean.stateless.LibrarySessionBean</ejb-class>

              </session>

          </enterprise-beans>

          <assembly-descriptor>

              <p:pool>

                  <ejb-name>LibrarySessionBean</ejb-name>

                  <p:bean-instance-pool-ref>PoolSize500</p:bean-instance-pool-ref>

              </p:pool>

          </assembly-descriptor>

      </jboss:ejb-jar>

       

      But I have the following error. I haven't even line 33, 35, 37 I have only 22 lines. Thank you in advance for your answers

       

      Capture d’écran 2014-09-30 à 18.25.26.png

        • 1. Re: problem with jboss-ejb3.xml
          wdfink

          The problem is in the referenced schemas.

          IIRC there is a problem with the referenced xsd, not sure whether this is solved.

           

          If that is the case the deployment should work anyway.