Hi, I merged some PRs to update the scm section and infra confirmed that the svn repos has been passed to read only mode when they started the migration process.
regards, François fpa...@apache.org Le 21/07/2021 à 11:04, Francois Papon a écrit : > > Good point! > > I will update the scm section of the pom and ask to pass the the old > svn repo in read only. > > François > fpa...@apache.org > Le 21/07/2021 à 11:02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : >> great news! >> did the <scm> section and release plugin was updated to enable releases? >> Also should we pass svn in read only if possible? recall xbean >> already got some weird state where we pushed to both locations >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >> >> >> Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 11:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net >> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> a écrit : >> >> Thanks for the update and taking action ! >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 7/21/21 10:58 AM, Francois Papon wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox: >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean >> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean> >> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail >> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail> >> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager >> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager> >> > >> > We can now merge the pending PRs. >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > François >> > fpa...@apache.org <mailto:fpa...@apache.org> >> > >> > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit : >> >> Thx for the ticket id ! >> >> >> >> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra: >> >>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908> >> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>> >> >>> >> >>> regards, >> >>> >> >>> François >> >>> fpa...@apache.org <mailto:fpa...@apache.org> >> >>> >> >>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit : >> >>>> Hi François, >> >>>> >> >>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id >> anymore, >> >>>> sry. >> >>>> >> >>>> Gruss >> >>>> Richard >> >>>> >> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon: >> >>>>> Hi, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> François >> >>>>> fpa...@apache.org <mailto:fpa...@apache.org> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit : >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect >> >>>>>> the >> >>>>>> hard- >> >>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would >> >>>>>> be >> >>>>>> very >> >>>>>> appreciated. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343 >> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343> >> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb >> >>>>>> fpa...@apache.org <mailto:fpa...@apache.org>: >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> regards, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> François >> >>>>>>> fpa...@apache.org <mailto:fpa...@apache.org> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit : >> >>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail- >> >>>>>>>> related >> >>>>>>>> patches? >> >>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;) >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain >> >>>>>>>> Manni- >> >>>>>>>> Bucau: >> >>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So >> >>>>>>>>> immediate >> >>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();. >> >>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we >> >>>>>>>>> should >> >>>>>>>>> target >> >>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use >> >>>>>>>>> such >> >>>>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since >> >>>>>>>>> adding is >> >>>>>>>>> easy >> >>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible). >> >>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural >> >>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>> resources >> >>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to >> >>>>>>>>> makes it >> >>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> SPI >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl >> >>>>>>>>> but >> >>>>>>>>> you >> >>>>>>>>> need to use another one"). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more >> >>>>>>>>> relevant >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as >> >>>>>>>>> soon >> >>>>>>>>> as >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the >> >>>>>>>>> lifecycle >> >>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>> terms >> >>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a >> >>>>>>>>> blocker >> >>>>>>>>> but >> >>>>>>>>> all >> >>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my >> >>>>>>>>> side). >> >>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to >> >>>>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>>>> another >> >>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard < >> >>>>>>>>> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de >> <mailto:richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de>> a écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in >> >>>>>>>>>> tomee's >> >>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of >> >>>>>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>>> singleton >> >>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to >> >>>>>>>>>> implement >> >>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep >> >>>>>>>>>> as >> >>>>>>>>>> Romain >> >>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent >> >>>>>>>>>> Guillaume: >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default >> >>>>>>>>>>> instance >> >>>>>>>>>>> is >> >>>>>>>>>> already >> >>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the >> >>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider >> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Florent >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>>>>>>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com <mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a >> >>>>>>>>>>>> public >> >>>>>>>>>>>> noarg >> >>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it >> >>>>>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>>>>>> enable >> >>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr >> >>>>>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>>>>>>>> new >> >>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn >> >>>>>>>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard < >> >>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de >> <mailto:richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de>> a écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very >> >>>>>>>>>> nice >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as we >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> given >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail >> >>>>>>>>>> server >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain >> >>>>>>>>>> Manni- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>> close: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail] >> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792>: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> update >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail] >> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800> >> >>>>>>>>>> (setText) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable >> >>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel >> >>>>>>>>>> free >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >> >>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage >> >>>>>>>>>> which >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl >> >>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com> >>
