The nice thing about it is that there are no ACKS/NACKS so, it's not
very chatty. The bad thing is that you have to wait for the token to
come your way before you can broadcast; if there are a lot of
participants in the group the latency will be larger that you might like.
On 1/10/2006 5:29 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Mapping the file name would reduce the length a bit, but i am
wondering if it is really worth the complexity for the small gain in
reduction of characters in the file path.
For users on JDK 1.5_06 (where the JDK bug is fixed), there are still
some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote, On 1/8/2006 5:38 AM:
Hi,
It's not that important and likely doesn't require a separate vote,
but as I was told it was decided to disable the archive bot of
#geronimo. Therefore, I thought to send the email so that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Sisson wrote, On 1/7/2006 10:46 PM:
FYI.. We need to be careful of resulting file path lengths on Windows
when creating web applications that may result in long file paths in
Geronimo due to a JDK 1.4 bug (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Blevins wrote, On 1/6/2006 3:24 PM:
On Jan 6, 2006, at 11:10 AM, David Jencks wrote:
Either I don't understand what is being proposed or I think it is a
recipe for disaster.
My past experience with open source projects leads me to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 1/6/2006 7:07 AM:
I'll summarize what I think I read.
HEAD will be 2.0 which includes JEE 5 and other significant work (Maven
2 conversion, etc.)
Branches/1.0 will be where the work for 1.0.x will take place. It would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote, On 1/6/2006 8:47 AM:
On Jan 6, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'll summarize what I think I read.
HEAD will be 2.0 which includes JEE 5 and other significant work
(Maven 2 conversion, etc.)
Branches/1.0 will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Jencks wrote, On 1/6/2006 11:10 AM:
Either I don't understand what is being proposed or I think it is a
recipe for disaster.
My past experience with open source projects leads me to believe that
having more than one main development area
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's my understading that we're going for JEE 5. I think that our
re-arch of security should go into that as well.
How do we want to stage this effort in terms of SVN organization? When
should we cut a 2.0 development branch?
Regards,
Alan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Snyder wrote, On 1/5/2006 3:43 PM:
On 1/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's my understading that we're going for JEE 5. I think that our
re-arch of security should go into that as well.
Agreed.
How do we want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Snyder wrote, On 1/5/2006 4:26 PM:
On 1/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we want to stage this effort in terms of SVN organization? When
should we cut a 2.0 development branch?
I suppose that the JEE 5 work would
How does this affect debugging?
Regards,
Alan
On 1/3/2006 8:39 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
That sounds pretty interesting -- does it really fully handle
annotations? I thought some of those could be inspected at runtime
and I'm not sure how that could be supported in 1.4, but I really
don't
+1 Release 1.0
Regards,
Alan
On 1/3/2006 10:11 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
If this is the same one we worked on week before last, it did pass the TCK.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:21:30 -0500
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All
+1 Release 1.0
Regards,
Alan
On 1/3/2006 10:11 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
If this is the same one we worked on week before last, it did pass the TCK.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:21:30 -0500
From: Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All
On 1/2/2006 2:09 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
2006/1/1, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 1/1/2006 12:33 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I would change the pom to 1.1-SNAPSHOT. We haven't officially
published the 1.0 jars yet so I would not worry about
On 12/30/2005 4:41 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Is the current HEAD going to be 1.0.1 or 1.1 or 2.0?
trunk will be 1.1
branches/1.0 will be 1.0.1
Regards,
Alan
On 1/1/2006 12:33 AM, David Jencks wrote:
First, Happy New Year!
On Dec 31, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what the steps are to apply patches to specs and release them
to the public? As I see it now, mvn builds 1.0 version of the specs.
When I apply the change from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This reflects my sentiments as well.
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 12/16/2005 6:49 AM:
can we make this an RC1 so people can shake it out a bit?
There seem to be problems being reported even before we have finished
the vote...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] +1 Release these binaries provided they pass the J2EE TCK
[X] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments)
Too many problems with the release.
Regards,
Alan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second that. So long as we do not make an actual tag w/ that date,
i.e. have a time series of release candidates in the tags directory.
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 12/15/2005 9:12 AM:
Good idea Paul...I like the date time string
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cryptix seems to have an impl. I haven't looked at it.
Regards,
Alan
Rick McGuire wrote, On 12/7/2005 9:45 AM:
Sasl is the challenge/response algorithm for simple server
authentication (Simple Authentication and Security Layer). The SMTP
spec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 assuming the binaries pass the TCK
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 12/13/2005 9:18 PM:
+1 assuming the binaries pass the TCK
On Dec 13, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
We are currently going through the final testing phases and have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rick McGuire wrote, On 12/14/2005 5:08 AM:
I had this figured out several weeks ago, but can't seem to get this
working now. I'm trying to make some changes to the
geronimo-specs-javamail code, but can't seem to get this to build.
What's the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jochen Wiedmann wrote, On 12/14/2005 1:46 AM:
Hi,
the JaxMe project contains a clean room implementation of the JAXB API
1.1. As future versions of J2EE will contain the JAXB API, I propose
that these be moved to the other Geronimo J2EE spec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Stoddard wrote, On 12/13/2005 2:21 PM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: adc
Date: Mon Dec 12 23:39:50 2005
New Revision: 356499
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=356499view=rev
Log:
made a copy
Added:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rick McGuire wrote, On 12/14/2005 11:58 AM:
Kevan Miller wrote:
Rick,
I've built the specs successfully using maven 2 (maven 2.0.1 doesn't
work). 'mvn install' works fine... Hmmm. Just noticed that the version
of the jars being built is '1.0'.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some of these look like new features. Should we scrub those from the
list, given that we've already branched the code?
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 12/10/2005 9:10 AM:
All,
We've made a lot of progress over the past few days with many
I've created some status pages for the sub-projects that are under
incubation here in Geronimo:
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/#head-3f967e319e0333b873da0d6e192b08a8ce5764b1
It would be pretty handy of the sub-project champions could keep this up
to date.
Regards,
Alan
Anders Hessellund Jensen wrote, On 12/6/2005 8:21 AM:
Hi all,
Currently, we need to compile idl files in at least two cases.
- The CORBA spec is based on idl.
- Interfaces for some test files is also defined in idl.
Currently everything is compiled with Suns idlj. This is not
satisfactory
Anders Hessellund Jensen wrote, On 12/6/2005 3:09 PM:
Lars Kühne wrote:
This question hasn't been addressed yet. I really don't see the point
of maintaining our own copy either. Where did that copy originate -
isn't it based on the OMG files anyway?
I think the current files originate
David Jencks wrote, On 12/5/2005 12:35 AM:
IIUC our spec jars are now built by maven 2.
Are they getting put into any m1 repo we might be using to build from?
Nope. I'll try to get this set up.
Are they under org.apache.geronimo.specs as groupId rather than
geronimo-spec?
Yes,
[X] go for it
[ ] don't care
[ ] no, because.
+1
Regards,
Alan
David Blevins wrote, On 12/2/2005 11:00 PM:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of
This reflects my sentiment as well.
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 12/2/2005 9:19 AM:
I thought is was a discussion only about line endings
To clarify, I am for using windows line endings in the zip file and
unix line endings in the tar.gz file. I am against leaving out some
Lars Kühne wrote, On 11/17/2005 10:18 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Lars Kühne wrote, On 11/17/2005 3:19 PM:
On 11/17/05, *Dain Sundstrom* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 Using JIRA for tracking progress of the ORB would be great.
[...] I suggest you create
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, On 11/18/2005 8:20 AM:
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of the projects
during incubation
[X] +1 = I support the move to sponsor ActiveMQ ServiceMix during
incubation as sub-projects of Geronimo
[ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
[ ] -1 = I
LOL
+1
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 11/16/2005 2:19 PM:
+1 for Matt as the Release Manager. Let's do it :)
Matt,
Please familiarize yourself with how other projects do it and how prev
releases were done. First step would be a release plan.
thanks,
dims
On 10/19/05, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL
Lars Kühne wrote, On 11/17/2005 3:19 PM:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On 11/17/05, *Dain Sundstrom* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+1 Using JIRA for tracking progress of the ORB would be great.
We already have a CORBA component, so I suggest you create an
Add an
David Blevins wrote, On 11/16/2005 4:16 PM:
On Nov 16, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Winston Damarillo wrote:
Kyle,
Very cool !
If the machines need to live in a datacenter with some admin
support. we would be glad to host it at Simula's cage along with the
other gbuild servers.
That would
Anders Hessellund Jensen wrote, On 11/15/2005 1:46 AM:
Lars Kühne wrote:
I'm having a hard time building the Trifork ORB in sandbox/freeorb.
I'm trying to follow /README-M2-BUILD.txt, but step 2 doesn't work
for me.
When I try to compile specs/*corba, I get
geronimo-spec-corba mvn install
Bruce Snyder wrote, On 11/15/2005 9:42 AM:
Please respond to this message if you will be at ApacheCon US in
December. There seems to be no clear indication of who will be there
and who will not because many people are missing from the hackathon
sign up doc. So far I see the following names from
jars.
Where should I send patches, Jira or this list?
Regards,
Lars
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Anders Hessellund Jensen wrote, On 11/15/2005 1:46 AM:
Lars Kühne wrote:
I'm having a hard time building the Trifork ORB in sandbox/freeorb.
I'm trying to follow /README-M2-BUILD.txt, but step 2
MacDonald, Kyle wrote, On 11/15/2005 4:29 PM:
AMD will be providing (4) 2P AMD Dual Core Opteron based systems to help
with dev, testing and QA.
In addition we will be happy to have our Java team assist with
development support issues around x86-64 and multi-core.
Please let us know if there
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 11/9/2005 10:14 PM:
I'd like to create a log level for major events that the user should
know about that are not bad, such as a deployment. They don't fit
into WARN or higher because they're not bad. But I don't want them to
get lost in the noise that is currently our
David Blevins wrote, On 10/31/2005 6:06 PM:
Can we kill this old branch?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
We have a tag for it here.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
after
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/29/2005 1:57 PM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I love an e-mail that elicites opinions :)
Ok, I give. I personally hate typing and was looking for an alternative
for folks. Sounds like there is moderate
I think that this is a great idea. May I suggest a refinement? There
is general noise on #geronimo, e.g. who lost their pants the night
before last. Would it be a good idea to have a more technical channel
that would get emailed out on a regular basis?
Regards,
Alan
Hiram Chirino wrote,
I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place them
in geronimo/archive/tags.
[ ] +1 archive the old tags
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 keep the tags where they are
Kevan Miller wrote, On 10/31/2005 12:21 PM:
I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
existence of a tag implies some special level of support. Without some
strong motivation, I see no reason to start altering the source code
history...
If they have no level of
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 1:20 PM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
existence of a tag implies some special level of support.
Or 'this is the exact
A tag is there for future reference. There is no good reason to to
refer back to them in the future as they are viritually random snapshots
of whatever happened to be lying around at the time.
Regards,
Alan
Jeff Genender wrote, On 10/31/2005 1:24 PM:
I have to agree with the Rodent. Is
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 1:32 PM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Tags imply that they are supported.
Really? I've never encountered that before. Maybe against a
V1_0_0 tage, but then you just tell someone 'nope
This is starting to sound pretty interesting. Could you flesh out this
example for those who are not maven gurus?
Regards,
Alan
Brett Porter wrote, On 10/31/2005 12:20 PM:
Yes, version ranges work, but simply omitting the version won't do it.
You could have [2.4,2.5) to pick up 2.4,
Brett Porter wrote, On 10/31/2005 12:52 PM:
Not exactly. The soft version is the version that will be used if it
fits in the valid ranges, and ignored if not. The conflict resolver in
play decides whether to use the nearest or newest of these versions -
in 2.0 only nearest was enabled.
If you
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 10/28/2005 1:07 PM:
I sent this proposal a while back and simply forgot about it until
Alan started working on the specs cleanup. I think the problem was I
presented it as one huge change, so this time I'm going to try to
break it up into tasks I can put into JIRA
: Authenticated As [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
I'm on SuSE Linux so maybe thats a difference? I can try a build later this
weekend...I'll have to setup a Windows Environment.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Yes. I'm on WinXP/JDK142. How about you
David Blevins wrote, On 10/31/2005 6:06 PM:
Can we kill this old branch?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
We have a tag for it here.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
after
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 7:09 PM:
A milestone represents a significant point in the development.
Until there's a released version that is feature- and bug-
compatible with what they're doing, a milestone reference
is better than anything else. Why would you want to remove
a
I think that we should remove the old tags, i.e. M1-M4.
Regards,
Alan
bother me
to see M1-M3 go. On the other hand, I don't see why it benefits us to
remove them.
Aaron
On 10/29/05, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that we should remove the old tags, i.e. M1-M4.
Regards,
Alan
On 10/28/2005 1:53 AM, David Blevins wrote:
What do you guys think about a gbuild subproject?
I'd really like at least a category in jira and at least a spot in
svn where we can check in scripts and docco. We could move the
scripts directory I created months back into it and work on
Yes. I'm on WinXP/JDK142. How about you?
Regards,
Alan
On 10/26/2005 6:40 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Hi Alan,
I just did a fresh-checkout and TranQL built ok. Are you still having
the same problem?
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Yeah, I refreshed this and I still get the same error.
Regards
On 10/27/2005 5:39 AM, Kresten Krab Thorup wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that we should build a complete stand-
alone and quality ORB. Once we're up and running, we might even see
Sun chime in, and have them adopt this the same way we've seen with
many other Apache Java projects.
[X] Yes, bring into sandbox
[ ] No
Unless someone has an objection, I shall convert this to M2 as I put it
into the sandbox.
Regards,
Alan
Someone, at some time, proposed that we breakout specs from our regular
build. I think that this is a good idea. I'd like to move it out to
its own root called specs. I will also convert it to m2 while I'm at it?
What do you think?
Regards,
Alan
On 10/27/2005 9:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
+1
I think the spec version should be part of the artifactId and then we
need a version as well,
e.g. artifactIdservlet-2.4/artifactId
versionIdrc4/versionId
Thinking the same thing.
I think we should talk to all the other apache projects
Yipee!
Joern Larsen wrote, On 10/26/2005 5:08 AM:
Hi
This mail is just to let you know that we at Trifork have chosen to
bundle the Geronimo server as part of our P4 product which is a J2EE
Lifecycle Performance Management product. Since the client of P4 is
hosted in an app. server we
I'm getting this error when I build on WinXP, JDK142:
Testsuite: org.tranql.ddl.DDLGeneratorTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0.15 sec
Testcase: testGenerate(org.tranql.ddl.DDLGeneratorTest):FAILED
expected:13 but was:10
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError:
Yeah, I refreshed this and I still get the same error.
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 10/26/2005 12:46 PM:
I fixed a typo in one of the test modules. I just did a
fresh-checkout and rebuilt so it looks clean at this point. Let me
know if your still broken Alan.
Matt
Alan D
David Klavon wrote, On 10/25/2005 11:36 AM:
Just wanted to let the community know that this morning IBM announced
a new software offering with support services that are based on the
Apache Geronimo open source project. The offering, called WebSphere
Application Server Community Edition, will
Barry van Someren wrote, On 10/25/2005 12:16 PM:
Good job all involved.
I'm loving Geronimo (but there is sooo much to learn before I'm fully
able to help out)
Barry, there is a low barrier to getting involved with Geronimo; after
all, they let me in. Pick something that looks interesting
I want to extend an invitation out to all the OpenORB developers who
might be interested in helping out. Lots of great work out here!
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 10/25/2005 8:19 AM:
For those of you that missed it Kresten wrote in the JIRA entry:
Did you do an
maven m:checkout
to get a fresh copy of OpenEJB?
Regards,
Alan
On 10/18/2005 8:26 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Can someone please help with this failure?
default:
java:prepare-filesystem:
[mkdir] Created dir: C:\APACHE\geronimo\openejb\modules\core\target\classes
+1
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 10/18/2005 7:01 AM:
+1 from me to ratify. PMC members should vote here.
Also, we'll need a contribution agreement from Epiqtech. I'll take
that as a todo.
geir
On Oct 17, 2005, at 8:06 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
Thanks for taking
.
Kresten Krab Thorup
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We do not inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our
children. Saint Exupery
On Sep 15, 2005, at 10:46 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
How are things going on this?
I hope that what will be donated will not be gold plated so that
the community
David,
I'm already half into the configuration/builder for the new wrapped
principals.
Regards,
Alan
David Jencks wrote, On 10/14/2005 8:47 AM:
oops
I'm hoping to have a more complete fix for the problems introduced by
the new principal wrapping ready very shortly. If I run into
This is way cool.
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote, On 10/7/2005 12:58 PM:
I have performance tested M5 (or thereabouts) using DayTrader (a
performance sample in Geronimo currently located in the sandbox).
The results of the testing I think are quite compelling as Geronimo
just passed
+1
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 10/12/2005 10:44 AM:
We need to get something out as a statement of record. here's the
short version - to the point, short and sweet. I have a longer one
if people want something longer...
I'd like to get a brief up or down, comments, edits, and then loft
I see Dain's point and I think that we do need to clarify if the PRC's
guidelines are suggestions or hard rules that they have been empowered
by the corporation to enforce. We need to clarify this because it seems
that the community really likes the contentious logo; they are aware of
other's
On 10/9/2005 10:03 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Oct 9, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I see Dain's point and I think that we do need to clarify if the
PRC's guidelines are suggestions or hard rules that they have been
empowered by the corporation to enforce. We need
David Jencks wrote, On 10/2/2005 5:15 AM:
We'd like to call for a vote on a release based on this tag
conditional on the tck passing (again). I think the process would be
that after the vote we would work on publishing the jars, this zip
distribution, and a source distribution.
+1
Thanks
+1
Thanks again guys!
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 10/2/2005 5:31 AM:
(just making it clear for others)
+1 from me
Thanks everyone for the incredible work to make this happen.
geir
On Oct 2, 2005, at 8:15 AM, David Jencks wrote:
The 1.0-M5 branch passed all the tck
Is using LGPL projects a no-no?
Regards,
Alan
On 9/27/2005 2:09 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
There's another issue with ActiveMQ 3.1. It pre-reqs JMDNS
(which is
LGPL). Looks like James fixed (i.e. removed JMDNS) in late August. So,
we'd need this change and your GBean changes... I don't know
A rose by any other name...
On 9/19/2005 7:27 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
+1 on what Matt says...and i will take it a step further. Instead of
MX, why not let this next one be the RC1?
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I agree with Jeremy and Aaron. I think we need some additional
performance work
On 9/19/2005 8:53 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
+1 on what Matt says...and i will take it a step further. Instead of
MX, why not let this next one be the RC1?
To me an RCx implies feature freeze and bugfixes only and it doesn't
sound like we
+1 Accept the DayTrader donation into the project
-1 Create an Applications subproject (to which Apache Geronimo
There is no compelling need at the moment for this.
Regards,
Alan
On 9/20/2005 9:32 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
+1 Accept the DayTrader donation into the project
- The more
On 9/20/2005 10:42 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I think we're losing the svn meaning of trunk/branches. I think we
either need to keep stuff under trunk or for each subproject have
geronimo/contrib/trunk
geronimo/examples/trunk
geronimo/specs/trunk
geronimo/devtools/trunk
etc.
for some thinks
I agree with Geir in that I think that we should have kept the branch;
even though it is widely accepted that we will not extend it with a
patch, it's just good form to do things in a consistent standard way.
What confused me when I responded to Dain's original request was the QA
suffix.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/19/2005 6:32 AM:
On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:59 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 9/18/2005 4:51 PM:
OK. I still have stuff I want to get in, but I can add it to both
M5 and HEAD.
-1 one should not be adding features to two branches
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 9/16/2005 10:07 PM:
Anyone mind if I delete the old M4 QA branch? The correct M4 code is
in tags/v1_0_M4, so this only leads to confusion (including mine
earlier today).
Delete away.
Regards,
Alan
How are things going on this?
I hope that what will be donated will not be gold plated so that the
community can participate in its integration into Geronimo. I know that
a few people, including people from OpenORB, are interested in helping out.
Regards,
Alan
Welcome aboard!
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/13/2005 3:29 AM:
The Apache Geronimo PMC is proud to announce Sachin Patel as our
newest Apache Geronimo committer, and look forward to his continued
great work on the Eclipse plugin, the pioneer codebase for our new
On 9/12/2005 4:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
M4 passed the automated tests, and M5 will. And with M5, we seem to
have no problems with the untestable assertions.
Shall we declare this our J2EE 1.4 certified release?
+1
Regards,
Alan
I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think today will be it ;-)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
So, where do we think we are today?
geir
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I think we've made significant progress in the last week
On 9/9/2005 4:55 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
I've taken a look at both solutions for the openejb ASN1 usage. The
ASN1 bouncy castle code is realatively selfcontained, and can be
separated out an repackaged relatively quickly. I've already managed
to build a version of the BC code that contains
[ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
[X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
BTW, in the future, please start a vote on a new email thread.
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/7/2005 10:06 AM:
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
[ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
[X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
Can you shine a little light on why? Was there something missed that
you want to get
Rick McGuire wrote, On 8/31/2005 5:15 AM:
I've been digging through the code trying to understand how/why the
asn1 code is getting used. It appears the BC code is just being used
to encode/decode X509 names for transport-level security. This is
done in two places:
1) the mech_oid field
[ ] Just let people post things like that to the list
[X] Ask that they vet these kinds of things through the Geronimo PMC
via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
[ ] Other :
Regards,
Alan
601 - 700 of 914 matches
Mail list logo
