Should this be removed since there is more work to be done on the M4
branch?
John
Apache Wiki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/07/2005 08:43:17 AM:
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on Geronimo
Wiki for change notification.
The following page has been
Here are some notes on SSL configuration from IIOP/CSIv2 point of
view. This is not API, just what a such API need to do. The Trifork
ORB (note: Trifork is with just one capital letter) includes some
code to do this, but it would make sense to integrate this into
ActiveIO to make it more
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that there is no practical way of removing all SNAPSHOTs
(without
having our own specially built temporary versions). For example,
I sent
a mail to the cglib dev list asking them to post their latest
version to
the maven
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
[SNIP]
After giving the whole issue some more thought, I think I would
prefer the TriFork code go to the incubator. I'm fine going
either way
with the web console (incubator or sandbox area with own
On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
[SNIP]
After giving the whole issue some more thought, I think I
would
prefer the TriFork code go to the incubator. I'm fine going
either way
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that we should have a single simple process.
All vendors must propose the code donation to the community.
Embarrassing denials can be averted by creating a gmail account and
asking if people are interested in technology X going
Those of you not at the BOF at JavaOne might have missed all the buzz
around JBI (Java Business Integration) - which is the new JSR
specification, released just before JavaOne which provides an API,
component model and container specification for integration
components. (i.e. ESBs).
Can I put this as a news item on the G website?
On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those of you not at the BOF at JavaOne might have missed all the
buzz around JBI (Java Business Integration) - which is the new JSR
specification, released just before JavaOne which
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can I put this as a news item on the G website?
+1 ... this is important stuff to get out...
Jeff
On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those of you not at the BOF at JavaOne might have missed all the buzz
around JBI (Java Business
On 12 Jul 2005, at 17:02, Jeff Genender wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can I put this as a news item on the G website?
+1 ... this is important stuff to get out...
+1
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Any interest in including in part of the standard distribution? If
so, lets get the TCK and certify it...
On Jul 12, 2005, at 12:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 17:02, Jeff Genender wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can I put this as a news item on the G website?
Comments in-line below.
-Donald
--- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that we should have a single simple
process.
All vendors must propose the code donation to the
community.
Embarrassing denials can be
On 12 Jul 2005, at 17:29, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Any interest in including in part of the standard distribution? If
so, lets get the TCK and certify it...
As an optional module it'd be quite handy, though I doubt it should
go into the core.
James
---
In order to avoid mile-long emails I'm starting over.
I think our overall goal is to strengthen the geronimo community by
bringing in new developers and code that we as well as they want to
work on.
This process is likely to be more work for us than the new developers,
since they already
+1 (superb support and mentoring for our new members and left
the questions of what to do if we fail to such time as it might be
needed.)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to avoid mile-long emails I'm starting over.
I think our overall goal is to strengthen
On Jul 12, 2005, at 12:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 17:29, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Any interest in including in part of the standard distribution?
If so, lets get the TCK and certify it...
As an optional module it'd be quite handy, though I doubt it should
go
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:14 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
Here are some notes on SSL configuration from IIOP/CSIv2 point of
view. This is not API, just what a such API need to do. The Trifork
ORB (note: Trifork is with just one capital letter) includes some code
to do this, but it would make
It strikes me that a lot of the dependencies here shouldn't even be
there. At least, I have no idea which component pulls them in. It
would be great to see which ones can be removed entirely, although I
don't have an efficient reproducible procedure in mind.
If a dependency is needed only
David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:14 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
For client sockets, things are slightly more complicated because we
need to support that the user is authenticated with an X509
certificate. In this case, the credentials of the user (which would
typically be
(superb support and mentoring for our new members and left the
questions of what to do if we fail to such time as it might be
needed.)
+1 Building relationships, mentoring, thousand points of light.
Respectfully,
David
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:32:48AM -0700, David Jencks wrote:
In order
On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
It strikes me that a lot of the dependencies here shouldn't even be
there. At least, I have no idea which component pulls them in. It
would be great to see which ones can be removed entirely, although
I don't have an efficient
On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:14 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
For client sockets, things are slightly more complicated because we
need to support that the user is authenticated with an X509
certificate. In this case,
Yes.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:01:21PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should this be removed since there is more work to be done on the M4
branch?
John
Apache Wiki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/07/2005 08:43:17 AM:
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki
Second thought, maybe a better thing would be to add a QA testing page with
information on how to help.
-David
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:43:33AM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
Yes.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:01:21PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should this be removed since there is more
+1
On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Second thought, maybe a better thing would be to add a QA testing
page with information on how to help.
-David
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:43:33AM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
Yes.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:01:21PM +1100, [EMAIL
+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
can place the code in our SVN.)
+1 to accept new folks from these contrib as regular committers (we
can have a public vote once we get list of people from
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-736?page=comments#action_12315627
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-736:
---
Fixed in head in rev 216014 for geronimo and unknowable cvs commits for openejb.
security, css, and tss schemas have
After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled into
the artifact jar file under typically META-INF/schema, and these
schemas can be
If you're confident you have it working, it would be nice to get
in to both HEAD and M4 IMHO:
* I think M4 is such a huge change that a rebuild is not a big deal
* It seems like we might have less dramatic changes between M* releases
going forward.
* AFAIK we haven't started but
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-738?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-738:
--
Attachment: xmlbeans2.diff
xmlbeans2.openejb.diff
xmlbeans2.plugin.jar
patches to convert to xmlbeans2, and new plugin.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to work.
Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
ready (each person on their merit).
+1 - let me know how and if I can help.
geir
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are
Aaron,
I have gotten quite a few projects processed thru incubator...so
please follow my advice :)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
become Apache
I have been waffling a bit back and forth on this issue...but I think I
have come to terms on my thinking on this subject.
I am not sure a concrete policy is necessary. Every piece of code
that comes through as a donation, either from a commercial vendor or
from another open source project
Dims,
Can you be more specific? I don't want to put words in your mouth,
but it seems like you are suggesting we should avoid the incubator.
Is that what you are saying? If so, why? I am under the impression
that this is exactly what the incubator is designed to do.
I'm really
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Nokleberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 01:56:45PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please create a maven upload bundle and post a request to Maven to
upload
cglib 2.1.2 to ibiblio so that maven based projects have access to
it.
I've
Dain,
No, i did not say we should avoid the incubator. It's just that the
piece of code we are talking about in both cases, seem un-usable w/o
geronimo. so a standalone project with its own infrastructure
(svn/committers/wiki/mailinglists etc) seems unnecessary. since most
of the work in those 2
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:01 PM:
+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
can place the code in our SVN.)
Yes, that is the high-level plan.
+1 to accept new folks from these
+1 for moving to xmlbeans v2 in HEAD and M4
John
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both cases,
seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't we?
-David
It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
-- dims
On 7/12/05, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's just that the piece of code
Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
like that, so...
Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
donated code are:
1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some number
of people) who have worked with the
Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/07/2005 06:01:25 AM:
+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
can place the code in our SVN.)
+1
I feel we should be focusing on getting the
David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/07/2005 09:38:36 AM:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
I don't know yet,
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/12/2005 4:50 PM:
Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
like that, so...
Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
donated code are:
1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some number
of
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:54 PM:
If you're confident you have it working, it would be nice to get
in to both HEAD and M4 IMHO:
* I think M4 is such a huge change that a rebuild is not a big deal
* It seems like we might have less dramatic changes between M* releases
going
David Jencks wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:45 PM:
After struggling with various attempts to use several incompatible
versions at once, I have geronimo + openejb working with xmlbeans v2.
I've modified the plugin to install the schemas that are compiled into
the artifact jar file under typically
David Jencks wrote, On 7/12/2005 10:32 AM:
I'd like to reemphasize that bringing in new committers with their
code is going to be a lot of work for the existing community. If we
fail to integrate a donation a very large part of the responsibility
rests with us for not having good enough
Review location of config-store directory
-
Key: GERONIMO-739
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-739
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
Components: core
Reporter: John Sisson
Fix For: 1.0-M5
Issue
On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
can place the code in our SVN.)
+1
+1 to accept new folks from these
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 7/12/2005 8:43 AM:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
All code donations go into
/geronimo/incubator/donationx/*
The contributors would get restricted committer access to their
I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even
during the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse
(anything that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc
or not). remember, this is an open-source project!!!
what is it that you are afraid
and we expect the same outcome either way too!!! (well integrated/well packaged)
On 7/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 7/12/2005 8:43 AM:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-740?page=comments#action_12315652
]
Hiram Chirino commented on GERONIMO-740:
Sharp eyes John.
It's available now, its our most stable release, and activemq 3.1 M4 is what I
expect to ship with
that was i think meant for Jeff and Aaron (too many email to
remember!!!. we sure are burning more cycles on this than it's worth.)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even
during the early stages. same
thanks!
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Hiram Chirino (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-740?
page=comments#action_12315652 ]
Hiram Chirino commented on GERONIMO-740:
Sharp eyes John.
It's available now, its our most
Move from ActiveIO 1.0 to ActiveIO 1.1
--
Key: GERONIMO-741
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-741
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
Versions: 1.0-M4
Reporter: John Sisson
Assigned to: Hiram Chirino
If
a) Why can't we create M4 so the source distro actually compiles?
isn't that the point?
b) Can we get rid of the snapshots to allow a) ?
geir
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: ammulder
Date: Tue Jul 12 18:55:04 2005
New Revision: 216087
URL:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
a) Why can't we create M4 so the source distro actually compiles?
isn't that the point?
b) Can we get rid of the snapshots to allow a) ?
Until we get rid of the SNAPSHOTS, we can only guarantee a) for a
short time. Our last milestone
Alan,
This is a great idea. I like the geronimo incubation ACL. +1 for this.
Jeff
From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:06 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console-
Whoops I hit send too fast as I wanted to address one more issue in this...
This is truly not an issue of support. All of this donated code has not
only my full support, but I would like the opportunity to help out as
well...so support from my perspective is there at 150%.
Jeff
-Original
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
a) Why can't we create M4 so the source distro actually compiles?
isn't that the point?
b) Can we get rid of the snapshots to allow a) ?
I will also mention that this worked in my favor for the moment --
I fixed a bug in OpenEJB, but
Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
that all that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
I suspect we need to decide :
1) do we need to have any policy?
2) If so, decide the
a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
Remove tools.jar hack that causes msg: WARN [ToolsJarHack] Could not all find
java compiler: lib\tools.jar file not found in ..
Key: GERONIMO-743
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-715?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder closed GERONIMO-715:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Aaron Mulder
My confusion was caused by the large number of getId methods in test CMP
1) -1. Guidelines are good, policy can be bad.
2a) IMHO...This will be hard to guage and form metrics. This is
subjective...since I think quality of participation plays to a certain
degree. Is this necessary? Can't we continue as we have (or has this
proven to be negative)?
2b) +1 for bring
Well, can we have a separate vote for what to do with the web
console? I thought it was ready (or nearly so) and I don't want to hold
up the contribution for some of the unrelated items on your list.
(break)
As for your list, are you saying that a vote for new code going to
Change spec dependencies to formal versions
---
Key: GERONIMO-744
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-744
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
Components: specs
Versions: 1.0-M4
Reporter: John Sisson
On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
1) -1. Guidelines are good, policy can be bad.
yes - guidelines captures what I meant. (I think of policy being the
same, but I can see how others don't...)
2a) IMHO...This will be hard to guage and form metrics. This is
Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 13/07/2005 12:13:56
PM:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
a) Why can't we create M4 so the source distro actually compiles?
isn't that the point?
b) Can we get rid of the snapshots to allow a) ?
Until we get rid of the
On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:58 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Well, can we have a separate vote for what to do with the web
console? I thought it was ready (or nearly so) and I don't want to
hold
up the contribution for some of the unrelated items on your list.
I was hoping that we could just
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-614?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder closed GERONIMO-614:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
Further enhanced the connector message.
Please file separate issues for other conditions that cause stack
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-733?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-733:
-
Version: 1.0-M5
Ouput configuration startup times in startup console output
---
Key:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-706?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-706:
-
Summary: Change default-database-plan.xml to use Derby and remove axion
from Geronimo assembly (was: Remove axion from Geronimo assembly and remove
Move from Axis 1.3-SNAPSHOT to formal version
-
Key: GERONIMO-745
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-745
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
Components: webservices
Versions: 1.0-M4
Reporter: John
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-745?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-745:
-
Version: 1.0-M4
Move from Axis 1.3-SNAPSHOT to formal version
-
Key: GERONIMO-745
URL:
Move from commons_discovery SNAPSHOT to format version
--
Key: GERONIMO-746
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-746
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
Versions: 1.0-M4
Reporter: John Sisson
this should be fine, it is an axis dependency and they are using 0.2.
The other axis dependencies that I think are relevant are
-rwxr-xr-x 1 david david 1624032 17 Jun 11:10 castor-0.9.5.2.jar
-rwxr-xr-x 1 david david29029 17 Jun 11:10 commons-codec-1.2.jar
-rw-r--r-- 1 david david
Move from ews SNAPSHOT to format version
Key: GERONIMO-747
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-747
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
Versions: 1.0-M4
Reporter: John Sisson
Assigned to: Davanum Srinivas
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-726?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder resolved GERONIMO-726:
---
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Aaron Mulder
I believe a deploy operation could fail because under the covers it was
implemented as distribute
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-747?page=comments#action_12315673
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-747:
---
we are not using EWS, so we should simply remove the dependency version.
Move from ews SNAPSHOT to format version
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-143?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder resolved GERONIMO-143:
---
Resolution: Duplicate
Automatic SQL Generation for CMP Deployment Phase
-
Key:
Deployer gives nasty stack traces for login failure
---
Key: GERONIMO-748
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-748
Project: Geronimo
Type: Improvement
Components: deployment
Versions: 1.0-M3
GBeanNotFoundException handling in MBeanServerDelegate.invoke
-
Key: GERONIMO-749
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-749
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: kernel
Versions:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-645?page=all ]
David Jencks reopened GERONIMO-645:
---
The POJO ws holders need to participate in the load-on-startup ordering as well.
Fixed in head rev 216113. Needs to be ported to M4.
geronimo/jetty
Configuration failing can result in NPE
---
Key: GERONIMO-750
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-750
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: kernel
Versions: 1.0-M3
Reporter: David Jencks
Assigned
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-750?page=comments#action_12315680
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-750:
---
fixed in head in rev 216114. Should this go into M4?
Configuration failing can result in NPE
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-738?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-738:
-
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
Geronimo rev 216115, openejb scattered across random directories. adc has
vetoed applying this to the m4
I have a patch to remove this and the tools jar hack, but I thought
it was too big of a thing to do in M4. If people want me to commit
the patch I can, but I think these are things that can wait until m5.
-dain
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:35 PM, John Sisson (JIRA) wrote:
Remove tmporb
I've switched head of geronimo and openejb to xmlbeans 2. You will
need to build the new xmlbeans maven plugin and then rebuild geronimo
and openejb.
To build the new plugin:
cd plugins/maven-xmlbeans2-plugin
maven plugin:install
cd ../..
To rebuild, assuming you have the uberbuild checked
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-746?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-746:
-
Summary: Move from commons_discovery SNAPSHOT to formal version (was: Move
from commons_discovery SNAPSHOT to format version)
Move from
91 matches
Mail list logo
