Folks,
I'm going to declare this vote as passed, with the following votes cast:
+1: Sean O'Callaghan, Sergey Beryozkin, David Bosschaert, Marc Schaaf, Jeff
Genender, Dan Kulp, Eoghan Glynn
I've promoted the artifacts to central and copied the distributions to the
cxf/dosgi/dist directory
July 2010 08:42, Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the raw text with the link formatting removed:
Folks,
I'm calling a vote to release CXF Distributed OSGi 1.2.
In addition to providing the Reference Implementation to the OSGi
Remote
Services Specification
On 19 July 2010 10:30, dav...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Eoghan,
On 17 July 2010 12:59, Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com wrote:
Eoghan would you have some cycles?
Yeah.
Excellent!
A couple of things before I go ahead and cut the release:
- can you update the release notes[1] with a summary
yours - if you have any tips I would love to
hear them :)
Cheers,
David
On 19 July 2010 12:35, Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
This exception happens when the remote service doesn't appear within
the timeout... Any chance of running it again and see if it still
fails
Folks,
I'm calling a vote to release CXF Distributed OSGi 1.2.
In addition to providing the Reference Implementation to the OSGi Remote
Services Specification, the CXF Distributed OSGi 1.2 release now also
provides the Reference Implementation of the OSGi Remote Service Admin
Specification
I think we're ready for a release!
Great!
Eoghan would you have some cycles?
Yeah.
A couple of things before I go ahead and cut the release:
- can you update the release notes[1] with a summary of what's new in this
release?
- does this TimeoutException[2] in
, why was the CXF import updated to include 0.0.0 ?
cheers, Sergey
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you tried overriding the org.osgi.framework.system.packages property
in
felix/conf/config.properties, with a list of packages specifically
Tasks left would be:
* When the above is done, cut the actual release candidate(s).
I can help cutting the release when you're ready to go.
Cheers,
Eoghan
On 11 June 2010 16:53, David Bosschaert david.bosscha...@gmail.com wrote:
Great, thanks Marc!
I think we're getting close to
port and also I could connect to the server
using JConsole.
I will try your route.
Regards,
Ulhas Bhole
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ulhas,
How are you picking up the config file?
For example, if you're running the server
+1
/Eoghan
On 19 March 2010 01:21, Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org wrote:
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.2.6 release. Over 55 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.2.7.
List of issues:
David,
One thing to note about pax-exam is that its doesn't AFAIK have a feature
analogous to the spring-osgi-test support for accessing and adding to the
manifest for the on-the-fly bundle.
Now I don't know whether we could possibly live without this
manifest-mangling as currently done by the
that the recent tiny bundles integration could take care
of this. Have a look at the bottom example in
http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/ExamAndTinybundles. Do you think
that will do it?
Cheers,
David
2010/1/22 Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com:
David,
One thing to note about pax-exam
+1
Cheers,
Eoghan
2010/1/20 Freeman Fang freeman.f...@gmail.com
+1
Freeman
On 2010-1-20, at 上午9:44, Daniel Kulp wrote:
This is a vote to release CXF 2.2.6
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.2.5 release. Over 78
+1
Cheers,
Eoghan
2010/1/20 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.9
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.1.8 release. Over 43 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.1.9
*Note:* as announced earlier
Hope everyone is ok with this.
Go for it!
And welcome to the project, Marc.
Cheers,
Eoghan
+1
Cheers,
Eoghan
2009/12/3 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
Cyrille has submitted several patches to various management and logging
related things for CXF starting way back in February. I think he's up to
7
or 8 submitted patches.He's also been hanging around the user list for
almost
Folks,
I'm calling a vote to release CXF Distributed OSGi 1.1.
The dOSGi subproject of CXF provides the Reference Implementation of the
Remote Services Specification version 1.0, Chapter 13 in the OSGi Compendium
Specification [1].
The release notes contain a description of new features and
+1
2009/11/15 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
This is a vote to release CXF 2.2.5
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.2.4 release. Over 90 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.2.5
List of issues:
The Maven staging area is
+1
/Eoghan
2009/11/15 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.8
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.1.7 release. Over 25 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.1.8
List of issues:
+1
/Eoghan
2009/10/8 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
This is a vote to release CXF 2.2.4
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.2.3 release. Over 59 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.2.4.
List of issues:
Thanks for the patch, Dan. Your efforts are much appreciated.
I've committed the fix just now in r809738.
Cheers,
Eoghan
2009/8/27 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
Please file a JIRA and submit the changes as a patch. This is excellent!
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF
Dan
On
+1
/Eoghan
2009/7/29 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org:
This is a vote to release CXF 2.0.12
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.0.11 release. Over 32 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.0.12
*Note:* as announced earlier this
+1
/Eoghan
2009/7/29 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org:
This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.6
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.1.5 release. Over 74 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.1.6
List of issues:
The Maven staging
Note that in order for any CXF MBean to actually be exposed, you'll
have to enable the IntrumentationManager (which is disabled by
default).
See [1] for details.
Cheers,
Eoghan
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/jmx-management.html
2009/7/21 Rao, Sameer V s...@amfam.com:
CXF Asynch
Hi Richard,
Apologies for the delay in replying. Please see my comments in-line.
2009/6/15 Richard Opalka ropa...@redhat.com:
what's the current state of CXF WS-RM?
See below.
I'm asking because we'd like to integrate probably
WS-RM in our JBossWS CXF integration.
Great that you're
One thing I've had at the back of my mind is WS-RM 1.1 support.
Is that something that would be of interest to you?
Cheers,
Eoghan
2009/6/12 Richard Opalka ropa...@redhat.com:
Hi CXF Team,
what's the current CXF roadmap from WS-* point of view?
What specs are you going to work on next and
+1
/Eoghan
2009/5/22 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org:
This is a vote to release CXF 2.2.2
With only 23 JIRA's resolved for 2.2.2, this doesn't have as many fixes as
many of the previous patch releases. HOWEVER, there is a one major new
feature: the JAX-RS 1.0 TCK now passes. Thus, it's
The Apache CXF dOSGi team is proud to announce the availability of our
first full release, 1.0.
The dOSGi subproject of CXF provides the Reference Implementation of
the Distribution Software (DSW) component of the Distributed OSGi
Specification[1].
Download information may be found here[2]
The
Sorry that should be 7 aye-sayers:
eglynn, davidb, sberyozkin, seanoc, ubhole, dkulp, jgenender
-Original Message-
From: Eoghan Glynn [mailto:eogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 13/05/2009 17:44
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE][RESULT] Release CXF dOSGi 1.0
Hi Folks,
I'm going
2009/5/7 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org:
Eoghan,
Could the version be passed into the xslt via an xslt param? That would
avoid needing to modify it as part of the builds and such.
Dan
Yeah, sure it could.
The literal version in the xslt was just a quick'n'dirty fix for a
minor issue in
Sent this earlier to dkulp individually, I meant to reply-all.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com
Date: 2009/5/5 10:13
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release CXF dOSGi 1.0
To: Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org
2009/5/4 Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org:
On Mon May 4 2009 5
Folks,
I'm calling a vote to release CXF Distributed OSGi 1.0.
The dOSGi subproject of CXF provides the Reference Implementation of
the Distribution Software (DSW) component of the Distributed OSGi
Specification[1].
The staging area can be found at:
I'd suspect you've a mismatch between the version of
cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs and the cxf-api jars.
The former depends on the Message.REQUEST_URI field, which is defined
in the latter.
This field was introduced on 2008-10-21, so you'll need a version of
the API jar from after this date
/systest/jaxrs/BookStoreJaxrsJaxws.java
2009/4/29 Eoghan Glynn eogl...@gmail.com:
I'd suspect you've a mismatch between the version of
cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs and the cxf-api jars.
The former depends on the Message.REQUEST_URI field, which is defined
in the latter.
This field was introduced
+1
/Eoghan
+1
/Eoghan
+1
/Eoghan
Internally in the CXF stack, usually we need to convert the other way
round, i.e. to populate the SAAJ model if its required for example
when a JAX-WS SOAPHandler is installed. This conversion is the
responsibility of the SAAJ{In|Out}Interceptor[1] classes.
However in your case, rather than doing
Hi David,
This would be a very welcome addition to the distributed OSGi support in CXF!
So please, fire away and commit what you've done so far.
Thanks,
Eoghan
2009/4/10 David Bosschaert david.bosscha...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Over the past while I have done some experimentation around a
2009/4/10 Sergey Beryozkin sbery...@progress.com:
Would it still make sense to keep the Local Discovery service implementation
? For ex to test against multiple Discovery instances ?
I think we definitely need to keep the local discovery service intact
in order to support the static
Hi David,
On the general point, I definitely agree that we need to be thinking about a
1.0 release.
On the specifics ...
* We need to make sure that all the API's we are using are exactly
correct with the lasted RFC 119 version, e.g. I think we need to add
something to the ServicePublication
+1
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: Sun 15/03/2009 18:57
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache CXF 2.2
This is a vote to release CXF 2.2
This release is a major step forward for CXF with several new features
including:
*
Thanks Dan,
I'll disable this for now and move the Jetty thread pool stuff to a separate
test.
/Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dk...@apache.org]
Sent: Thu 26/02/2009 16:04
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Cc: egl...@apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r748171 - in
+1
/Eoghan
+1
+1
/Eoghan
Folks,
Are commits to trunk still propagated to 2.0.x-fixes, or is it just 2.1.x-fixes
that's actively maintained now?
Cheers,
Eoghan
The id attribute seems to be visible now on
http://cxf.apache.org/schemas/core.xsd
/Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: David Bosschaert [mailto:david.bosscha...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 07/01/2009 14:04
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: http://cxf.apache.org/schemas/core.xsd out of date
think we take the http client timeout(60s) as an example.
Cheers,
Willem
Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Folks,
Is a default value of 2000ms reasonable for the JMS clientReceiveTimeout?
For even moderately long-lived requests, this seems *way* too tight to me.
A timeout in the ballpark of 2s seems
Yep agreed, makes sense to have a separate distributed OSGi category in JIRA.
Cheers,
Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 11/12/2008 11:27
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Would it make sense to add a Distributed-OSGi component to
Yep agreed, makes sense to have a separate distributed OSGi category in JIRA.
Cheers,
Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 11/12/2008 11:27
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Would it make sense to add a Distributed-OSGi component to
Folks,
For some reason the minimal bundle lists org.apache.cxf.tools.wsdlto.core in
its Import- Export-Package manifest headers, even though the
cxf-tools-wsdlto-* modules are excluded from this bundle.
The net result is an unresolved package error when the minimal bundle is
installed.
- Original Message -
From: Eoghan Glynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:58 PM
Subject: Problem with cxf-bundle-minimal
Folks,
For some reason the minimal bundle lists org.apache.cxf.tools.wsdlto.core in
its Import- Export-Package
sense to you?
Cheers,
Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 14/11/2008 15:26
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Cc: Eoghan Glynn
Subject: Re: why does the SOAP CheckFaultInterceptor run in the POST_PROTOCOL
phase?
Actually, I remember why I put it that late
through this.
For the record, +1 votes were received from:
Ajay Paibir, Benson Margulies, Christian Schneider, Dan Kulp, Eoghan Glynn,
Freeman Fang, Glen Mazza, Guillaume Nodet, Jeff Genender, Jim Ma, Richard Hall,
Sergey Beryozkin, Ulhas Bhole, Willem Jiang
Cheers,
Eoghan
-Original
Folks,
Is there any reason why the SOAP CheckFaultInterceptor runs in the
POST_PROTOCOL phase, as opposed to PRE_PROTOCOL?
The net result is handleFault() is never called for a client-side JAX-WS
SOAPHandler, as the CheckFaultInterceptor (which is responbile for determining
if a fault is
Thanks for the quick response Dan, some comments inline ...
Is there any reason why the SOAP CheckFaultInterceptor runs in the
POST_PROTOCOL phase, as opposed to PRE_PROTOCOL?
Well, the basic reason is that to check for a fault, it needs to look at the
first element in the body. The
Hi David,
It would be great to have RFC 126 support in Felix as well as Equinox, as
obviously this would remove a barrier to wide adoption of dOSGi.
So I agree, it would be a good move to contribute back the ListenerHook support
from the forked version of Felix that we've put in the CXF
Thanks David for this summary!
There is a lot of work that still needs to be done:
...
- We need better documentation.
On the subject of docco for dOSGi, I wrote up a quick getting started guide a
while back. It would need a bit of updating as it dates from before the
donation of the
. Would appreciate if they could be applied too.
Cheers,
David
2008/10/16 Eoghan Glynn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks David, applied.
Cheers,
Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: David Bosschaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 16/10/2008 12:03
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: [DOSGi
+1
/Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: Willem Jiang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 18/10/2008 11:19
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache CXF 2.1.3 (2nd try)
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.1.2
Thanks David, applied.
Cheers,
Eoghan
-Original Message-
From: David Bosschaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 16/10/2008 12:03
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: [DOSGi] Patch for CXF-1876
Hi all,
I've attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1876
Would greatly
.
Cheers,
David
Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Did you do the moves as a single step, or more like moving a to c via:
mv a b
mv b c
David Bosschaert wrote:
Yeah, I moved intent-map.xml from META-INF/osgi into a new directory
called OSGI-INF/cxf/intents in a few places. I also moved
remote
Thanks David, patch applied.
/Eoghan
David Bosschaert wrote:
Hi all,
I've attached another patch to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1836 that implements the
required Service Properties on the DistributionProvider service. The
patch is called DistributionProvider-properties.patch
Thanks for the patch David, now applied.
/Eoghan
David Bosschaert wrote:
Hi all,
I attached a further patch for CXF-1811 to this bug:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12391563/property_rename2.patch
The patch is called 'property_rename2.patch'. A direct link to the
+1
/Eoghan
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Christian has been doing quite a bit of very good work doing an almost ground
up re-write of the JMS transport which is a very challenging and complicated
task.
He's done quite a bit of work documenting various JMS things on the Wiki and
even wrote an article
David Bosschaert wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to get rid of the exception that shows up when you distribute
a service in a bundle that doesn't provide an intent-map.xml file.
Currently this seems to work well, but an exception comes up on the
screen. If a user doesn't provide this map, simply
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Eoghan,
On Thursday 11 September 2008 5:52:20 am Eoghan Glynn wrote:
Next question.
When I expose a service registered under multiple interfaces, what is it
supposed to do in today's codebase?
Will it somehow expose both interfaces over the wire or does it just
pick one
, Eoghan Glynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dunno if I'd agree with this JIRA, if I've understood it correctly.
For a request-response MEP, WS-RM can be configured so that a 202
Accepted response is immediately sent back to the client (possibly
including an eager ACK) and then whenever it becomes
-1 to decommissioning the CXF JMS transport.
If there are perceived shortcomings in the CXF JMS transport config,
lets identify these issues, raise corresponding JIRAs, and get them fixed.
/Eoghan
Benson Margulies wrote:
My question is dumber. If Camel, a part of Apache, is a superior
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
This is a vote to release CXF 2.1.2
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.1.1 release. Over 67 JIRA issues
are resolved for 2.1.2.
List of issues:
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is a vote to release CXF 2.0.8
Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
have been done compared to the 2.0.8 release. Over 28 JIRA issues are
resolved for 2.0.8. Most importantly,
Folks,
Does anyone know if svnmerge.py can be used to report on the commits to
trunk that have been blocked wrt to merging out to the 2.0.x_fixes branch?
Its sortta like a retrospective avail option that I'm after, i.e.
gimme all the commits that were available for merging, but were
Daniel Kulp wrote:
5) OSGi stuff - I know there are some OSGi enhancements in the works
that could be pulled in:
a) osgi http transport - this currently lives in ServiceMix, but
could be pulled into CXF to work with other OSGi runtimes
b) Distributed OSGi (RFC 119) - there is work being
74 matches
Mail list logo
