Thanks! I will take a look.
regards, François fpa...@apache.org Le 23/07/2021 à 08:53, Zowalla, Richard a écrit : > Done. > > - https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail/pull/2 > - https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail/pull/3 > > Gruss > Richard > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 09:59 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard: >> Ok. Will do! >> >> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think it's better if you can push a PR via github. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> François >>> fpa...@apache.org >>> >>> Le 21/07/2021 à 11:01, Zowalla, Richard a écrit : >>>> Hi François, >>>> >>>> thanks for the update. >>>> >>>> Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests >>>> or >>>> is >>>> the plan to apply them directly? >>>> >>>> Gruss >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean >>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail >>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager >>>>> >>>>> We can now merge the pending PRs. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> >>>>> François >>>>> 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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> François >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb >>>>>>>>>> fpa...@apache.org: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the >>>>>>>>>>> PRs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> François >>>>>>>>>>> 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> 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> 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> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (setText) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
