about the bts: depend the size/how you want to integrate it but basically what prevents you to use it in openejb? i think a service (see how is done ejbdservice maybe) is easy to do and can be hosted with bts (which make probably more sense ATM)
wdyt? about a logo: we did a contest but since the vote is not started you have some time to propose one more i think ;) *Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* 2013/2/11 Sule BASOL <kadirba...@icloud.com> > what do you think about , > BTS ( Binary Transfer Sockets ) , it includes video and multimedia > communication faster then Adobe > > Can we integrate it into openejb for p2p support ? > > Btw , do you need logo ? > > > > On 11 Şub 2013, at 19:08, Sule BASOL <kadirba...@icloud.com> wrote: > > > Another thing , We have made java p2p library. > > We will make it opensource and its so fast with low bandwidth > communication. > > > > BTS ( Binary Transfer Sockets ) , it includes video and multimedia > communication faster then Adobe. > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Şub 2013, at 18:14, Sule BASOL <kadirba...@icloud.com> wrote: > > > >> It will be good to see openejb would have many integrated jaas futures > like ; > >> ActiveMQ + OpenEJB shared jaas authentication ( maybe opensso ) > >> I will try it now. > >> JavaCard integration to JAAS > >> > >> OpenEJB has only 2 jaas modules thats so weak. > >> Another thing is , for android and ios it would be good to add low > bandwidth communicator. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11 Şub 2013, at 18:10, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Nobody? > >>> No opinion? > >>> > >>> > >>> 2013/1/31 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>>> Hello guys, > >>>> > >>>> The trunk (1.6.0 from our latest discussions) is currently embedding > a lot > >>>> of new features. > >>>> > >>>> I think the gap between the 1.5.2 (maintenance release) is growing, > then > >>>> IMO we should start the release 1.5.2 in order to focus on the 1.6.0 > after. > >>>> > >>>> End users are waiting the maintenance release so I would like to > start the > >>>> process and release the maintenance release 1.5.2. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jean-Louis > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jean-Louis > >> > > > >
