I might give up to merge it to the coming Geronimo 2.1.5  :-(

2010/3/29 David Blevins <[email protected]>

>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Ivan wrote:
>>
>>  Please ignore my previous request, it might not completly fix the issue I
>>> wanted :-(
>>>
>>
>> Chatting with Ivan on IRC.  We're going to try an alternate technique to
>> finding the issue.  Basically the object in question is not designed for
>> multi-threaded use under the assumption that is designed only to be used
>> inside the transaction in which it was created -- and all transactions are
>> single threaded.
>>
>> So we came up with an alternate patch:
>>
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12439747/OPENEJB-1246-alt.txt
>>
>> We'll wait for some TCK data on that and see if that doesn't help
>> illuminate the issue caused by the related ActiveMQ fix Ivan is working
>> with.
>>
>
> So where are we at with the ActiveMQ/EJB issues?
>
>
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>>> 2010/3/25 Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>  Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest
>>>> artifacts
>>>> from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB
>>>> standalone
>>>> and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>>> org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build script
>>>> attached). Is this a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <[email protected]
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Ok, finally got some binaries up.  Took a few spins but finally got
>>>>> something up with good signatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>>>
>>>>> The binaries:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>>>
>>>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
>>>>> against the proposed binaries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Ivan

Reply via email to