The caclulator-rmi sample keeps failing on the hudson build as the
client runs before the service has finished starting up. I've stepped
through the code to try to find why its so slow and it turns out to be
this.factory = SocketFactory.getDefault(); in the constructor of
Is there any security configured? I.e. is it doing some kind of
security handshakes? You quote a plain SocketFactory so I wouldn't
expect it to be firing up SSL but I don't know the innards well enough
I'm afraid.
Simon
Thanks Raymond, there's some good points in that. I do think we need
to have the usability aspect a high priority and I mean that for both
Tuscany developers and users. Flexibility is all very good but unless
its done carefully it can make things unnecessarily complicated, so
another principle
We have two copies of the default definitions information.
C:\simon\tuscany\java-2.x\modules\assembly-xml\src\main\resources\META-INF\sca-policy-1.1-intents-definitions-cd02.xml
C:\simon\tuscany\java-2.x\modules\assembly-xsd\src\main\resources\sca-policy-1.1-intents-definitions-cd02.xml
For some
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
The caclulator-rmi sample keeps failing on the hudson build as the
client runs before the service has finished starting up. I've stepped
through the code to try to find why its so slow and it turns out to be
this.factory =
It does ring a bell but it's working OK for me at the moment.
Simon
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:49 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com
wrote:
b3/ one or more composite files but which are present in
META-INF/sca-deployables (is this still supported?)
No, i think i took out support
Hi Raymond
Why was it necessary to pass in the outer component? The property
values are pushed down into the outer component's component type, if
appropriate, when the component properties are reconciled with those
of its component type. Hence they are available in the parent
composite. Have I
Hi,
I had to make such changes to fix the property source calculation.
Taking an example,
composite name=Composite1
component name=C1
implementation.composite name=ns1:Composite11/
property name=p2 value=1/
/component
component name=C2
implementation.composite
I would prefer to avoid introducing a Tuscany-specific way considering we
already have solutions for defining the deployable composites. But you could
propose the idea to the spec group to see what they think.
Thanks,
Raymond
--
From: ant elder
Hi,
The common-java modules is added for a different purpose. It holds common
utilities in the java programming, such as classloading, reflection, io.
This has nothing to do with TUSCANY-2988 which was intended to extra the
logic to introspect Java classes/interfaces for SCA metadata.
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
--
From: Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 7:41 AM
To: tuscany-dev dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Tuscany SCA Java 1.5.1 RC4
Please review and vote on RC4 of the Tuscany SCA
+1 to release Tuscany SCA Java 1.5.1 RC4.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2988?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Luciano Resende reopened TUSCANY-2988:
--
Reopened based on Raymond's feedback :
The common-java modules is added for a different
Not sure. The otests are working for me currently. I'll prod Mike and check.
Thanks
Simon
Hi, Simon.
Is it really needed? We already have such logic in the
org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.impl.ComponentImpl.clone(). When a composite
is cloned, all the containing components are cloned. If the component
implementation is a composite, then the implementation is cloned too.
Can you
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
Really great news Raymond, it would be great if we could start
investigating this further to explore more complex scenarios on the
App Engine... I was thinking on getting the store sample in a first
stage, and then
Below are the list of issues I found while getting the store scenario
working in Google AppEngine:
- The JSON-RPC Binding is using Commons HTTP Client, which spawn
threads which is not allowed in the AppEngine environment. I have a
local version of the binding using only URLOpenConnection, but it
+1 from me.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.comwrote:
Please review and vote on RC4 of the Tuscany SCA Java 1.5.1 release.
The distribution artifacts, RAT reports, and Maven staging repository
are available for review at:
19 matches
Mail list logo
