It was clear that there were no votes against accepting the codebase
from IBM for the console.
The code has been submitted to us via JIRA issue
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-762
and we can now place into our svn repository and get to work.
I'd be happy to take the codebase
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
and we can now place into our svn repository and get to work.
I'd be happy to take the codebase in ASAP, and Aaron can tally the
vote/poll for operating mode and we can then resolve that in
parallel w/ beginning work. How does that sound?
TCL not correct when setting connector properties
-
Key: GERONIMO-769
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-769
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: connector
Reporter: Jeremy Boynes
Assigned
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-769?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-769:
--
Attachment: MCFWrapper.diff
I think this will fix the issue but don't have time to test right now. Will
look more later if noone beats me to it.
TCL
On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
and we can now place into our svn repository and get to work.
I'd be happy to take the codebase in ASAP, and Aaron can tally the
vote/poll for operating mode and we can then resolve that in
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-271?page=comments#action_12315999
]
Jacek Laskowski commented on GERONIMO-271:
--
A testcase that shows the issue has just been checked in to OpenEJB. See
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-45
java.lang.IllegalStateException: More then one configuration mananger was found
in kernel
-
Key: GERONIMO-770
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-770
Project: Geronimo
On the issue of the name I vote admin-console and not include the donor's name
(ala ibm-web-console). Not sure of the policy.
Matt
On Sunday 17 July 2005 12:09, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the issue of the name I vote admin-console and not include the donor's name
(ala ibm-web-console). Not sure of the policy.
+1.
Matt
Jacek
I believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty
builds, so we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed to
prefer.
David B asked me to try to get the IzPack Maven target working,
though in truth I'm happy to run it from the command line to produce
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 3:47 AM:
It would be nice to come up with a quick checklist so we can get
these things in and commence with TCK testing before we push it out the
door.
I think that some people are already testing the non-web portions.
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 7/15/2005 11:18 PM:
I think we have the cart before the horse on the geronimo/incubator/*
choices. We should have a discussion on how exactally this will work
and what the policies are and then vote to decide that we want to
create our own incubator inside of
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/17/2005 10:49 PM:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
and we can now place into our svn repository and get to work.
I'd be happy to take the codebase in ASAP, and Aaron can tally the
vote/poll for "operating mode" and we can then resolve that
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/17/2005 8:33 AM:
So after looking at the web console code and the JSR-77 spec, I
got the idea in my head that we could use a management API made up of
actual classes and interfaces, instead of object names and attribute
names. This is not meant to replace JSR-77 as
On Jul 17, 2005, at 2:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the issue of the name I vote admin-console and not include the
donor's name
(ala ibm-web-console). Not sure of the policy.
I'd like to not persist donor names in our repo structure if the
donor doesn't want it, and probably ever.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 7/15/2005 11:18 PM:
I think we have the cart before the horse on the geronimo/
incubator/* choices. We should have a discussion on how
exactally this will work and what the policies are and then vote
to
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty
builds, so we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed to
prefer.
Its done...I am waiting on SVN at this point...
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote, On 7/18/2005 6:04 AM:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty
builds, so we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed
to prefer.
Its done...I am waiting on SVN at this point...
I think that this should
I checked into HEAD the ability to easily build a Jetty or Tomcat
version. If we want this in M4, then we probably should re-cut the
branch or if someone has a better idea, speak up ;-)
So how do you easily switch containers? In the etc/project.properties
there is a line like follows:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-655?page=all ]
Jeff Genender closed GERONIMO-655:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
Resolution: Fixed
Turned on the AccessLogValve by default. (It was previously commented out).
Access logs not are plaved
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Jeff Genender closed GERONIMO-763:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M4
Resolution: Fixed
Done. etc/propject.properties now has a property called
geronimo.web.container. It may be set jetty or
On Jul 17, 2005, at 6:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I checked into HEAD the ability to easily build a Jetty or Tomcat
version. If we want this in M4, then we probably should re-cut the
branch or if someone has a better idea, speak up ;-)
M5!
So how do you easily switch containers? In
I probably should add...
To edit the Jetty configuration (i.e. connectors, etc), please edit one
of the following files in modules/assembly/src/plan:
jetty-config.xml
jetty-deployer-config.xml
jetty-runtime-deployer-config.xml
or for Tomcat:
tomcat-config.xml
tomcat-deployer-config.xml
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
M5!
+1
That's cool - can we override somehow at build time so we can automate?
maven -Dgeronimo.web.container=tomcat m:rebuild
Jacek
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 17, 2005, at 6:41 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I checked into HEAD the ability to easily build a Jetty or Tomcat
version. If we want this in M4, then we probably should re-cut the
branch or if someone has a better idea, speak up ;-)
M5!
As a side note
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Alan Cabrera reopened GERONIMO-763:
---
Assign To: Alan Cabrera (was: Jeff Genender)
M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Alan Cabrera updated GERONIMO-763:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
(was: 1.0-M4)
M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-763?page=all ]
Alan Cabrera closed GERONIMO-763:
-
Resolution: Fixed
M4: Provide identical Jetty/Tomcat assembly alternatives
Key:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-655?page=all ]
Jeff Genender reopened GERONIMO-655:
Logging in Tomcat
-
Key: GERONIMO-655
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-655
Project:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-655?page=all ]
Jeff Genender closed GERONIMO-655:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
(was: 1.0-M4)
Resolution: Fixed
Logging in Tomcat
-
Key: GERONIMO-655
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
discussion, where a number of people voted to distribute two
Being selfish, I would like to see it in M4, and I agree it was part of
the concensus of the 2 builds.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 7:46 AM:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
on 18/07/2005 08:41:22 AM:
I checked into HEAD the ability to easily build a Jetty or Tomcat
version. If we want this in M4, then we probably should re-cut
the
branch or if someone has a better idea, speak up ;-)
I was hoping this was going into M4.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
David Jencks (JIRA) wrote:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-768?
page=comments#action_12315970 ] David Jencks commented on
GERONIMO-768:
---
Should this go into M4?
I don't know
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 16/07/2005 01:46:40
PM:
I am wanting to deploy a RC jar for geronimo\specs\activation
I have tried the following command in the activation directory
C:\Projects\J2EE\geronimo_m4qa\geronimo\specs\activationmaven
-o
jar:deploy -Dmaven.username=jsisson
It
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-758?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-758:
-
Summary: Move geronimo_spec_activation version from 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT to
1.0.2-rc4 (was: Move geronimo_spec_activation version from 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT to a
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-758?page=all ]
John Sisson resolved GERONIMO-758:
--
Resolution: Fixed
Move geronimo_spec_activation version from 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT to 1.0.2-rc4
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-758?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-758:
-
Summary: Move geronimo_spec_activation version from 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT to a
1.0.2-rc4 (was: Move geronimo_spec_activation version from 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT to a
Aaron,
Your answer really helps me. And this could be helpfull for other devs
on dev-list.
Schema its ok form me. I take a look on schema directory and I found
other xsd and dtd files. Will DConfigBeans be provided just for
deployment plans (WAR, JAR, EJB-JAR, EAR and RAR) or it needs to cover
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Adriano Orlando Campestrini wrote:
Aaron,
Your answer really helps me. And this could be helpfull for other devs
on dev-list.
Great -- I'm glad you forwarded it.
Schema its ok form me. I take a look on schema directory and I found
other xsd and dtd files. Will
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-759?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-759:
-
Summary: Move geronimo_spec_javamail version from 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT to a
1.3.1-rc4 (was: Move geronimo_spec_javamail version from 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT to a
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-759?page=comments#action_12316018
]
John Sisson commented on GERONIMO-759:
--
The geronimo_spec_javamail_version property is set in OpenEJB's
etc/project.properties, but it doesn't seem to be used. Maybe
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-759?page=all ]
John Sisson resolved GERONIMO-759:
--
Resolution: Fixed
Move geronimo_spec_javamail version from 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT to a 1.3.1-rc4
Move from custom cglib build version HEAD-06-06-05 to cglib-nodep-2.1_2.jar
---
Key: GERONIMO-771
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-771
Project: Geronimo
Type: Task
I'm with Alan.
-David
(excuse the incorrect quoting; mutt elinks don't like Alan's blackberry)
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:53:58AM +0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 7:46 AM:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that this should wait
Does anyone know of any reasons why
we can't move from SNAPSHOT to jUDDI version 0.9rc4 for the Geronimo M4
release?
Currently only snapshots are in http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository/juddi/jars/
John
47 matches
Mail list logo
