Congrats Mr. Jencks!
-David
On Jul 31, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
The PMC would like to welcome David Jencks as the newest member of
the PMC. Please join us in welcoming David.
Matt
A big +1 from me.
-David
On Jul 31, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
history length=too long
About a week ago there was a discussion on the OpenEJB mailing list
regarding the TransactionContextManager. In OpenEJB 3 we removed
the use of the TCM from Geronimo and replaced it with
On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:34 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
I think this query needs to be modified to just all open jira's
containing patches. As unassigned filters many out.
Right, that was very intentional as to make it super clear what
contributions have not yet found a committer to love and
On Jul 23, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I think it would be better to remove the Subprojects page (and
the link to it from the Development section) and then just add
the links to the Subprojects section just below it on the left-nav.
+1 I've suggested that before.
-David
On Jul 24, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What I meant was that something needs to be included in the left-hand
side menu about our subprojects - not pages per se, but references to
appropriate home pages of these subprojects.
Okay, I agree with this statement... and this is what I
Looks like an easy fix:
http://ci.gbuild.org/continuum/servlet/browse?file=74/target/surefire-
reports/org.jencks.SpringTemplateAndJCATest.txt
-David
On Jul 18, 2006, at 9:16 AM, James Strachan wrote:
I'll move 'em elsewhere if you like; hopefully another open source CI
server that
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
Hey Jason,
These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For
example the Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs build used geronimo/configs.
So, at the moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases of
the G 1.2 build are broken.
I've
On Jul 15, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Noticed these in the m1 and m2 snapshot repositories. Any reason
for them?
xbean-crap? Alrighty then :)
I'd say delete them. We got the source, at the very least we can
rebuild them if there was something someone needed.
-David
On Jul 15, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On 7/15/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 15, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Noticed these in the m1 and m2 snapshot repositories. Any reason
for them?
xbean-crap? Alrighty then :)
Meaning:
http
that together later
today.
-David
--kevan
On May 10, 2006, at 9:26 AM, David Blevins wrote:
All,
I've revived our script that creates unstable builds. Further,
I've hooked it up to run every Wednesday at 6am PST. I chose
Wednesday as it gives developers a couple days into the week to
try
On Jul 13, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Rafael Barrera Oro wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 7/13/06, Rafael Barrera Oro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem thas arose now is that when i invoke the create
method from
the home interface, the result is the following exception:
Exception in thread main
Hey Aaron, jimmy seems to be down. Can you poke him and wake him up?
-David
On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Rafael Barrera Oro wrote:
I am trying to make a simple lookup for a simple SessionBean and,
altough it throws no exception, nothing happens as i can wait
forever if i want before the lookup is completed, maybe it has
something to with the incomplete
Kevan, you've been tck dog for six months now. Having built the
system and done the job myself, I know you're not going to survive
another six months. We definitely need to get someone else to take
that job for a while.
What do you think?
-David
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 10, 2006, at 1:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Kevan, you've been tck dog for six months now. Having built the
system and done the job myself, I know you're not going to survive
another six months. We definitely need to get someone
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 7/7/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still believe there is value getting the state of OpenEJB at tagged
level and accessing it with m:co. Here is an example...
I am trying to research some classloading issues regarding OpenEJB
On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I tried to build the v1.1 of Geronimo tag and I noticed that when
I went
to do a m:co of openejb, it is giving me the openejb branch
instead of
the 2.1 tag. Sure enough, upon perusal of
On Jul 7, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I tried to build the v1.1 of Geronimo tag and I noticed that
when I went
to do a m:co of openejb, it is giving me
On Jul 5, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Last week the PMC voted to invite Jeff Genender and
Matt Hogstrom to join it. Both have accepted the
invitation and will be part of the team responsible
for overseeing the healthy
the intention to make it independent
from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
On 12/3/05, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The
OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org
That's cool. That's what we're using in the 3 branch.
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
The contents of the m1 and m2 build openejb jars are necessarily
somewhat different, so it's desirable that they have different
names: otherwise the geronimo m2 configs build tends to
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoa!
I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I
know I
committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1
PMC member
looked at it. And that took over
the openejb2 m2
build with these new groupId's so that the G m2 build can start
using them?
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:45 PM, David Blevins wrote:
That's cool. That's what we're using in the 3 branch.
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
The contents of the m1 and m2 build openejb
.
-David
On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
FYI, I'm working with David Blevins now to try and get the OpenEJB
jars published... and once published then the defautl build will
not need these sources. But for folks that want to build G and
OpenEJB in one swoop we can setup
The latest version? Sorry i didn't get what you mean :)
-David
On Jun 30, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What is the version that we should be using?
--jason
On Jun 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Built and published the latest jars from my mac.
For reference it's
Jencks, do you think
this is good?
-David
On Jun 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Built and published the latest jars from my mac.
For reference it's simply: Finder - Go - Connect to Server
Use https://dav.codehaus.org/dist/openejb/; for the Server
Address. Good idea to click
On Jun 26, 2006, at 9:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Can you explain in more detail the rearchitecture that was done in
this update? If this from openejb3 does that mean that we can
deprecate openejb3?
No, you misunderstand. Just about December/January/February OpenEJB
1 trunk and 2
+1 Same here. I also built and tested openejb 3 against it and that
worked too.
-David
On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I have studied the patch, built the branch, and tested it a bit.
Aside from one small issue about where openejb gets checked out
that I fixed and
+1
On Jun 27, 2006, at 3:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
I noticed that the download page no longer has a KEYS link.
Yesterday (before the update to the site) the KEYS link at the very
bottom of the download page pointed to http://people.apache.org/
dist/geronimo/KEYS but it seems there is a
On Jun 27, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 6/27/06, anita kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan,
When Jacek was coordinating the m2 build, the snapshots were
continuously published. Any missing geronimo jar or pom was available
from the repo. The same must be done for the
On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
the release process itself.
I don't quite understand what this means. Sorry.
Referring to things like switching the version numbers, etc
-process.html
-David
David Blevins wrote:
We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
avoid reinterpretation of that consensus
On Jun 22, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
The remaining question is what to do with the branches that are out
there. I think we should whack what's out there (does not appear
that there has been any activity) branches/1.1 and branches/1.1.1.
When the vote is complete later today
On Jun 22, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I also think that we could probably merge GMOxPMGT into the
geronimo space, but that is just a thought.
+1
-David
IMO, the important thing is to get the content into Confluence and
out of moin. Maybe start by adding them to the sandbox
Subject says it all. All projects moved over except XBean because
its root pom.xml has an incorrect scm url.
-David
On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
What's our strategy for the 2 active Wikis we now have?
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/
http://cwiki.apache.org/geronimo/
Are we moving everything from wiki over to cwiki and all new
architecture content (like building
On Jun 21, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Hi Jason,
I agree that we should avoid branching. But I do agree with the
1.1.1
branch. It's a dead-end branch in that it's only used to prepare he
release. Applying last minute fixes and changing version numbers.
Since it's a dead-end
We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
1. branches/x.y would be the
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
IIUC, version specific information has snuck into elements that
should be version free, e.g. scm. Here is a list of elements
that should have version information removed:
scm
build...remoteRepositoryUrl
distributionManagment
Not
On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
IIUC, version specific information has snuck into elements that
should be version free, e.g. scm. Here is a list of elements
that should have version
the vote passes. That's the ideal scenario anyway.
-David
On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
--jason
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote
Way to go, Joe!
-David
On Jun 20, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
In recognition of his contributions to the Apache Geronimo
community, the Geronimo PMC is proud to announce the committership
of Joe Bohn. Joe has contributed in many areas, including the
console and as of recent,
Done.
On Jun 19, 2006, at 11:36 AM, toby cabot wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:40:03AM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Working copies of versions in branches would be branches/n.n.
This would
be the effective trunk for any version work.
Does this mean that someone will be re-creating
Hey all,
I ported the GBuild space over to cwiki and updated it slightly.
http://cwiki.apache.org/gbuild/
Next, I'd like to get a Subprojects box in addition to our tab that
lists GBuild and links directly to the site above.
Love that Geronimo template in cwiki!
-David
On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Hi All,
I'm a bit lost with the two branches we have now to manage the web
site. I have the .../site/branches/may2006 branch updated and
ready to go live, it already includes that last two changes
(updated events and added book to
On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm not sure Ken's intent was to introduce a new concept as much as
he was pointing out a side benefit. My understanding was that RTC
was enforce to improve community collaboration and communication.
Clearly its not working very well
Oh, I see. There is already a 1.1.1 branch. My bad.
Sorry, going to delete the branches/1.1 and call for a vote.
-David
On Jun 19, 2006, at 2:54 PM, toby cabot wrote:
Hi David,
Done.
Thanks!
Toby
+1
On Jun 19, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Here are the latest binaries built from
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1.0,
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/1_1 and
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/daytrader/branches/1.1.0.
I believe this
Is there a code quality issue in this community?
-David
On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that means things languish for weeks or
On Jun 17, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Blevins wrote:
Is there a code quality issue in this community?
Not necessarily. There *does* appear to be an issue
with some people not wanting to abide by the requirements
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch? What's
going on?
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron,
It was moved under tags/1.1.0.
Jay
Comment from the peanut gallery...
It is extremely poor form to
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Why not copied to tags/1.1.0 so that branches/1.1 would continue to be
available for 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT? That would have the advantage of not
disrupting anyone's work if there was code that wasn't checked in
pending 1.1.1,
[edit]
Are there any
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1. That still
wasn't what I expected. I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
all times. I don't expect us to continue to change it to
branches/1.1.1 branches/1.1.2 branches/1.1.3
go into 1.1.1 and gives you a way to fix
any last minute 1.1.0 release bugs if needed
Works for me.
-David
-Donald
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Why not copied to tags/1.1.0 so that branches/1.1 would continue
to be
available for 1.1.1
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/15/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly that, to make sure people don't move on and checkin work on
branches/1.1 for 1.1.1 where there is a freeze on branches/1.1 for
preparing v1.1 (which may not pass it's vote and have
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so I just want to recap some of the known issues that have come
up in the last few days, some of which have been diagnosed and some of
which have not yet:
* WAR in an EAR cannot use a database pool by including a dependency
on it (the EAR
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Also, if we get the ServiceMix integration working, we may be able to
leverage the ServiceMix file poller instead of implementing a separate
one for Geronimo.
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
+1, that was exactly what i was
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or
moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be added
to branches/1.1, this should not cause problems. The release
manager gets say over
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Does anyone mind if I move branches/1.1.1 back to branches/1.1?
The trick is we aren't done with 1.1.
Not sure why you make this statement. Do you mean that we cannot
move it back since people are actively
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be
added to branches/1.1, this should
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be
added
+1
-David
On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have pushed new XBean 2.4 binaries in a private repo for review.
They are available at
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.4/m1/org.apache.xbean
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.4/m2/org/apache/xbean
agreement with
your proposal.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/15/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5
+1 from me!
-David
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
I have created what I hope is the final release of Geronimo 1.1.
There has been a lot of work that has gone into this release
(please review the RELEASE-NOTES). Here are the final release
candidates for your
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
the default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His
thoughts are clear though.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM,
Hi Hernan,
All looks pretty great. One comment below.
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
The last section should hold everything else, this section will
be a good place to put the historical and/or still valid data from
the old wiki that does not fit in any of the other
Or Maven for that matter. In fact, we chould just snarf their entire
docco setup and use that as a starting point.
-David
On Jun 12, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
-1...there is a large spot here for plugins...especially ones under
the
ASF license. I am still against the
Still reading this thread, but lots of cool ideas in this email.
Would be cool to use something like this in gbuild -- bunch of
directories hot-deployed containing the various jobs we run.
-David
On Jun 11, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I looked at the developerworks article.
On Jun 11, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'd feel a lot better about tight restrictions on 1.1.1 if we really
made 1.2 a minor release and put all the stuff on the plate for 1.2
into 2.0. But so long as 1.2 is a major release, then 1.1.1 needs
more than hot
On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 11, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'd feel a lot better about tight restrictions on 1.1.1 if we
really
made 1.2 a minor release and put all the stuff on the plate
for 1.2
people's first inclination will be to
document general Geronimo stuff that's not version specific in the
GERONIMO space.
It's also pretty trivial to move documents.
-David
Cheers!
Hernan
David Blevins wrote:
Hi Hernan,
All looks pretty great. One comment below.
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:29
On Jun 12, 2006, at 1:36 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 12, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Yeah, SandBox was the most representative name I could come up
with at that time, not necessarily the best ;-)
I would prefer to keep the geronimo space as a the router to all
our content
On Jun 12, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
+1
IMO, they should be executable in zips and tgz
Do you know of some secret way to get execution bits retained in a
zip file?
-David
--jason
On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I'm not a unix expert at all, but it
!
Hernan
David Blevins wrote:
Hi Hernan,
All looks pretty great. One comment below.
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
The last section should hold everything else, this section
will be a good place to put the historical and/or still valid
data from the old wiki that does not fit
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
Coming
On Jun 8, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Well, if you're going to submit that patch, you need to include a
change in the annotation in the plugin schema along with it -- it
specifically says that field is an exact match.
I'm still not sure I'm on board with this, though. I don't feel
All,
The New Feature Wednesday builds broke nearly immediately as apache
went down followed by codehaus the week after. Things are looking
good again and I've gotten it working again. I've also added a few
new features:
- A text changelog: see http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/
/jira/browse/GBUILD-19
Project: GBuild
Type: New Feature
Reporter: David Blevins
Assigned to: David Blevins
Use VMWare for testing on other operating systems
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one
Maybe you want to jump on this thread and post some thoughts.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openejb.devel/3165/focus=3165
I've had a at least one person report not getting mail at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] It turned out to be a matter of mail
filtering, but looking around the net at the
Very excellent work!
Thanks to you and the guys on infra@ for making this happen.
-David
On May 26, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Hi All,
the new cofluence wiki cwiki.apache.org is ready to go live! I have
reorganized the documentation, migrated it and updated the new
confluence
On May 24, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
It looks like the mailing lists are not working, yet, however.
They should be working, you just need to use @openejb.codehaus.org
instead of @openejb.org.
-David
Just as a reminder, these notes are just a starting point for
discussion.
-David
On May 19, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
All,
A great time was had at JavaOne, including a variety of
Geronimo-related meetings, hacking time in the W and Moscone, a BOF, a
party, etc. Here are some
Build's busted. three days now.
On May 17, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Hey !!! What happened to the builds that gbuild used to post daily to
the repository directory at
http://svn.apache.org/repository/geronimo/distribution ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 5/12/06, David Blevins [EMAIL
Heh, maybe go is James' new Active
I can see it now... GoMQ, GoIO, GoCluster
-David
On May 17, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
What is goopen.org?
James Strachan wrote:
Now we've got the confluence - static html in subversion thing all
squared away I've moved the existing XBean
LOL, i love it.
First there was Jelly, then there was Groovy,... now meet Goopy.
-David
On May 17, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Oh. I thought it was to cover in goop, as that API is really
invasive - it will goopen your codebase...
geir
David Blevins wrote:
Heh, maybe
will these builds hang around? I
see that there are still builds from 1.0 out there. Just a nit -
but it would be nice if we could put the most recent build at the
top of the list.
Joe
David Blevins wrote:
All,
I've revived our script that creates unstable builds. Further,
I've hooked
choose.
Just a nit - but it would be nice if we could put the most recent
build at the top of the list.
Sure. Most people don't notice that page is sortable. We can link
it that way for convenience.
http://cvs.apache.org/dist/geronimo/unstable/?C=M;O=D
-David
Joe
David Blevins wrote
/jira/browse/GBUILD-18
Project: GBuild
Type: New Feature
Reporter: David Blevins
Assigned to: David Blevins
Use VMWare for testing on other operating systems
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one
All,
I've revived our script that creates unstable builds. Further, I've
hooked it up to run every Wednesday at 6am PST. I chose Wednesday as
it gives developers a couple days into the week to try and get
features in that they'd like people to try out. It also gives a
couple days in
On May 8, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
That's good :-)
* * *
I still think that we should avoid the silly jar naming that sun
dropped on the community wherever possible.
Not suggesting that we need to change anything as it is now, but if
we do, when we do...
Not a fan of
On May 5, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Dave,
thanks for the reminder of the vote. I was thinking in terms of
Dain's first note in this chain. I believe I voted +1 in that
original moduleId thread. After considering this further I'm
revising my opinion as I don't think we're
On May 5, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'll defer to the body of committers as to how important this is
and if it should go into for 1.1. Personally I don't think it
really matters what the name is. ModuleId has its own set of
baggage and so will everything else. I'm more
On May 3, 2006, at 11:05 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I was kind of inspired by Dain looking over the crufty
KernelManagementHelper (though unfortunately, I haven't yet finished
returning the favor).
In any case, I could produce a list of a few classes that are big and
ugly and need refactoring.
On May 4, 2006, at 12:57 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
I'd like to kick off a thread about the monitoring of clustered
deployments...
There is a section in the 1,000ft Clustering Overview (http
On May 4, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Jules Gosnell wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On May 4, 2006, at 12:57 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
Sort of. Both your explanations involve smartening the java
clients on the other end of WS or CORBA to play nice.
??
smart java
On May 4, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
The goal of those protocols is to interop in a language agnostic
fashion. WS are all stateless for EJB, so there is nothing to
cluster anyway.
stateless calls are still clustered - the load-balancing and
failover
Cool.
Can you post a diff of what you had to change to get G to build and
start with different verion number. Trying to update the
publish_build.sh script. Got the standard plugins and etc/
project.properties stuff, but it seems i'm missing something still.
-David
On May 3, 2006, at
On May 2, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~hcunico/site/
I think these proposed changes will facilitate access to the
documentation, increase it's visibility and hopefully we will see
more volunteers to continue developing the docs.
Thoughts, comments,
801 - 900 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
