Re: Translate to Portuguese: examples/async-servlet
Hi, I created an PR to this issue = https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579 needs review. thanks. -- *Daniel Dias dos Santos* Java Developer SouJava & JCP Member GitHub: https://github.com/Daniel-Dos Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/danieldiasjava Twitter: http://twitter.com/danieldiasjava Em ter, 1 de out de 2019 às 00:17, Daniel Dias Dos Santos < daniel.dias.analist...@gmail.com> escreveu: > I created the JIRA [1] to translate the doc of async-servlet > > Can some of the JIRA admins please assign the ticket to my username = > danieldiasjava > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2697 > -- > > *Daniel Dias dos Santos* > Java Developer > SouJava & JCP Member > GitHub: https://github.com/Daniel-Dos > Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/danieldiasjava > Twitter: http://twitter.com/danieldiasjava >
[GitHub] [tomee] Daniel-Dos opened a new pull request #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
Daniel-Dos opened a new pull request #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579 Link to Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2697 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579#issuecomment-536846913 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579#issuecomment-536846908 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet
asf-ci commented on issue #579: TOMEE-2697-Translate to portuguese-async-servlet URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/579#issuecomment-536846909 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
Translate to Portuguese: examples/async-servlet
I created the JIRA [1] to translate the doc of async-servlet Can some of the JIRA admins please assign the ticket to my username = danieldiasjava [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2697 -- *Daniel Dias dos Santos* Java Developer SouJava & JCP Member GitHub: https://github.com/Daniel-Dos Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/danieldiasjava Twitter: http://twitter.com/danieldiasjava
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Does something need to failover in this scenario, in order to reproduce it? Jon On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: > Here's the ref: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 The > scenario mentioned in the ticket is sending a message from an MDB, which > call connectionPool.getConnecion() twice. We actually haven't observed that > problem in practice (doesn't mean it's not happening though). > > > I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all > connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one > transaction > I actually wasn't aware this existed (go figure). This could be why we're > not seeing the issue on the MDB/Send a Message scenario. > > The scenario where we can reliably reproduce the problem is to have a Bean > Managed Transaction start, send a bunch of messages, then commit the > transaction, all in the loop. While this isn't explicitly stated in the > original ticket, it has the same leak. > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Jencks > wrote: > > > Could you explain this scenario further? Are there multiple activemq > > managed connections to different brokers but associated with the same > > connection handle? Or one managed connection associated with more than > one > > “physical” connection? I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling > > would result in all connection handles being associated with one managed > > connection in one transaction. > > > > Thanks > > David Jencks > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher > > wrote: > > > > > > It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport > > (Which > > > is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or > more > > > physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore < > > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might > > mean > > >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan > > (Fisher) > > >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him. > > >> > > >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community > > can > > >> decide what to do. > > >> > > >> Jon > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard < > > >> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Jonathan, > > >>> > > >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10 > > >>> > > >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its > transient > > >>> jackson-databind dependency. > > >>> > > >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been > updated > > >>> yet :) > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Richard > > >>> > > >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher: > > >>> > > >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. > We > > were > > >>> > > >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking > on > > TLS > > >>> > > >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the > > >>> > > >>> problem. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the > > >>> > > >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > >>> > > >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 > API > > jar. > > >>> > > >>> New snapshot deployed. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close > > the > > >>> > > >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > > >>> > > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > >>> > > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore < > > >>> > > >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < > > exabr...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore < > > >>> > > >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Jon > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < > > >>> > > >>> exabr...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no > > >>> > > >>> issues > > >>> > > >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which > > >>> > > >>> affects > >
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Here's the ref: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 The scenario mentioned in the ticket is sending a message from an MDB, which call connectionPool.getConnecion() twice. We actually haven't observed that problem in practice (doesn't mean it's not happening though). > I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one transaction I actually wasn't aware this existed (go figure). This could be why we're not seeing the issue on the MDB/Send a Message scenario. The scenario where we can reliably reproduce the problem is to have a Bean Managed Transaction start, send a bunch of messages, then commit the transaction, all in the loop. While this isn't explicitly stated in the original ticket, it has the same leak. On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Jencks wrote: > Could you explain this scenario further? Are there multiple activemq > managed connections to different brokers but associated with the same > connection handle? Or one managed connection associated with more than one > “physical” connection? I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling > would result in all connection handles being associated with one managed > connection in one transaction. > > Thanks > David Jencks > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher > wrote: > > > > It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport > (Which > > is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or more > > physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore < > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might > mean > >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan > (Fisher) > >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him. > >> > >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community > can > >> decide what to do. > >> > >> Jon > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard < > >> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Jonathan, > >>> > >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10 > >>> > >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient > >>> jackson-databind dependency. > >>> > >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated > >>> yet :) > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Richard > >>> > >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher: > >>> > >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We > were > >>> > >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on > TLS > >>> > >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the > >>> > >>> problem. > >>> > >>> > >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the > >>> > >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >>> > >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API > jar. > >>> > >>> New snapshot deployed. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close > the > >>> > >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>> > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>> > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore < > >>> > >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing! > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < > exabr...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore < > >>> > >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not. > >>> > >>> > >>> Jon > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < > >>> > >>> exabr...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no > >>> > >>> issues > >>> > >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which > >>> > >>> affects > >>> > >>> all versions of TomEE). > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue > >>> > >>> now > >>> > >>> because > >>> > >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be > >>> > >>> transactional > >>> > >>> > >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >>> > >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> The Locator issue
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
Could you explain this scenario further? Are there multiple activemq managed connections to different brokers but associated with the same connection handle? Or one managed connection associated with more than one “physical” connection? I’d expect that transaction caching in the pooling would result in all connection handles being associated with one managed connection in one transaction. Thanks David Jencks Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 30, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Jonathan S. Fisher wrote: > > It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport (Which > is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or more > physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore < > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean >> we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan (Fisher) >> is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him. >> >> I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can >> decide what to do. >> >> Jon >> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard < >> richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jonathan, >>> >>> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10 >>> >>> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient >>> jackson-databind dependency. >>> >>> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated >>> yet :) >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >>> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher: >>> >>> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were >>> >>> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS >>> >>> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the >>> >>> problem. >>> >>> >>> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the >>> >>> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >>> >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar. >>> >>> New snapshot deployed. >>> >>> >>> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the >>> >>> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >>> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >>> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >>> >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Oh wow, that would be amazing! >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >>> >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not. >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < >>> >>> exabr...@gmail.com> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no >>> >>> issues >>> >>> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which >>> >>> affects >>> >>> all versions of TomEE). >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue >>> >>> now >>> >>> because >>> >>> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be >>> >>> transactional >>> >>> >>> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >>> >>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the >>> >>> fix >>> >>> in >>> >>> before rolling. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro >>> >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >>> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >>> >>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its >>> >>> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have >>> >>> seen >>> >>> some >>> >>> fixes. >>> >>> >>> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off >>> >>> some >>> >>> releases >>> >>> and votes? >>> >>> >>> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - >>> >>> that >>> >>> needs >>> >>> some more reviewers and votes. >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com >>> >>> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it >>> >>> as >>> >>> half >>> >>> full. >>> >>> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >>> >>> needs >>> >>> to >>> >>> be. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
Re: 7.1.x and 7.0.x releases
It was 5.15.9 that was causing problems with the failover transport (Which is a best practice to use). Essentially you memory leak when two or more physical activemq connections get involved in an XA transaction On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:55 AM Jonathan Gallimore < jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not against updating ActiveMQ on 7.0.x, but I suspect that might mean > we lose compatibility with Java 7. I forget which version Jonathan (Fisher) > is running, but I suspect that's not an issue for him. > > I'll take a look at the versions, and start a thread so the community can > decide what to do. > > Jon > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:39 AM Zowalla, Richard < > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> current 7.1.1-SNAPSHOT branch is on ActiveMQ 5.15.10 >> >> This update was conducted due to several CVE's related to its transient >> jackson-databind dependency. >> >> But, if I am right, you are still on 7.0.x - which has not been updated >> yet :) >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> Am Dienstag, den 24.09.2019, 10:57 -0500 schrieb Jonathan S. Fisher: >> >> So I've got a test case, but it will likely just be isolated to us. We were >> >> upgrading the ActiveMQ RAR to 5.15.9 to enable strict host checking on TLS >> >> certificates. If we keep the stock ActiveMQ rar/jar we don't see the >> >> problem. >> >> >> So I guess take note of that if someone ever asks for an upgrade, the >> >> failover protocol will collapse a 32m JVM after about 10k messages. >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >> >> >> I have opened this ticket and pushed a fix on both Java EE 7 and 8 API jar. >> >> New snapshot deployed. >> >> >> I'm waiting for the full build on master to pass and then I'll close the >> >> ticket and fire up the 2 releases so you can move on with TomEE >> >> >> -- >> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro >> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:03 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Oh wow, that would be amazing! >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:49 PM Jonathan S. Fisher >> >> wrote: >> >> >> I'll get a reproducer project put together that demos the bug. >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> If we can come up with some good tests for it, I don't see why not. >> >> >> Jon >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM Jonathan S. Fisher < >> >> exabr...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> We've been running 7.0.x latest in prod for a few weeks with no >> >> issues >> >> other than the ActiveMQ Failover protocol memory leak issue (which >> >> affects >> >> all versions of TomEE). >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-6391 This is an issue >> >> now >> >> because >> >> our JMS Context / Connection Factories will actually be >> >> transactional >> >> >> Should/Could we patch the ActiveMQ jar? >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: >> >> >> The Locator issue raised earlier today. Would be great to get the >> >> fix >> >> in >> >> before rolling. >> >> -- >> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro >> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore < >> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I'm just doing some cleanup on these branches. I'm thinking its >> >> probably time we put out new releases as these branches have >> >> seen >> >> some >> >> fixes. >> >> >> Is there anything that we think is missing before I kick off >> >> some >> >> releases >> >> and votes? >> >> >> I'd like to get the quartz-openejb-shade update if possible - >> >> that >> >> needs >> >> some more reviewers and votes. >> >> >> Jon >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com >> >> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it >> >> as >> >> half >> >> full. >> >> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it >> >> needs >> >> to >> >> be. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com >> >> Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as >> >> half >> >> full. >> >> Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs >> >> to >> >> be. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc. >> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics >> >> >> >> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences >> Max-Planck-Str. 39 >> D-74081 Heilbronn >> phone: +49 7131 504 6791 >> mail: richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de >> web: http://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/ >> > -- Jonathan | exabr...@gmail.com Pessimists, see a jar as half empty. Optimists, in contrast, see it as half full. Engineers, of course, understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive() URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578#issuecomment-536552221 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive() URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578#issuecomment-536552218 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [tomee] jgallimore opened a new pull request #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
jgallimore opened a new pull request #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive() URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
[GitHub] [tomee] asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive()
asf-ci commented on issue #578: Example for using messageConsumer.receive() URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/578#issuecomment-536552217 Can one of the admins verify this patch? This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org With regards, Apache Git Services
