On May 3, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Great, if you can provide with some content for XBean and GBuild I
will create the respective directories and reorg accordingly.
devtools.html is currently at root level so I will move it to the
existing devtools directory and rename it as
for your time,
Nice looking doc, Jules!
I asked this question last time and you said you wanted to compile
the info into 1000ft document, so I'm guessing this is my queue :)
On Mar 11, 2006, at 12:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I like the concept that clients can be made smarter or store
Why are the plugins using geronimoVersion in addition to the
standdard geronimo_version?
I remember seeing some of that usage in the past, though it seems to
have flourished.
-David
On May 3, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Thar she blows
David Blevins wrote:
Cool.
Can you
+1
-David
On May 1, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have put some binaries of the new xbean-2.3 release.
They are available at http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.3/
[ ] +1 Release the binary as XBean 2.3
[ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments)
If the vote
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GBUILD-2?page=all ]
David Blevins reassigned GBUILD-2:
--
Assign To: David Blevins
Extention to re-queue build tasks that failed
-
Key: GBUILD-2
URL
On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:12 AM, argyn wrote:
when i try to build with maven new command, it fails to download
a lot files. apparently, iy is able to download some files. here's
an example of failed download:
===
Attempting to download geronimo-jmxremoting-1.2-SNAPSHOT.jar.
Error
Welcome to the world of breaking the build and release frenzy! ;)
Congrats, Rick!
-David
On Apr 21, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
In recognition of his contributions and participation in the Apache
Geronimo community, the Geronimo PMC is proud to announce the
committership
Way to go Prasad! A big old +1 to faster startup improvements.
-David
On Apr 20, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Thanks to Prasad we now have percompiled jsps in the console, and
the console is much snappier on initial load.
The difference is so drastic on my g4 mac, I'd like to
According to the update text on the latest Java VM update for OS X:
This release includes J2SE version 1.5.0_06. With this update J2SE
5.0 becomes the preferred Java version, superseding Java 1.4.2. Java
1.4.2 is still installed on your machine, but applications will run
with J2SE 5.0
Seems the 1.0 jars in cvs.apache.org were getting updated. I had put
them there as a convenience but it's no good if they get updated and
the bad versions begin to pollute the world. To fix this, I have
backed up our specs at cvs.apache.org and recreated them from scratch.
You can no
Also, you'll want to kill any org.apache.geronimo.spec-*-1.0.jar
files you have in your $HOME/.maven/repository as they may be the
contaminated versions.
-David
On Apr 19, 2006, at 6:08 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Seems the 1.0 jars in cvs.apache.org were getting updated. I had
put them
On Apr 11, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Unpacked archives in the repository:
The solution is to not place unpacked archives in our repository.
I (dain) am going to look at using a class loader that can read
from classes and
On Apr 7, 2006, at 2:14 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Jeff said that he was going to look at moving these system
properties to
the j2ee-corba plan.
I did? ;-) Thats news to me! I'll see if I can get some time to
do it...
And you said you'd do my taxes too. Don't
08, 2004
loader
GERONIMO-282 servlet calls ejb: class not found at deployment
and run time toby cabot Aug 05, 2004
GERONIMO-226 Locical dependency
supportDavid
Blevins Apr 26, 2004
GERONIMO-191 Deployment
On Apr 6, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
David can you change the tag [jira] on the subject to something
else. I filter all [jira] notices into the trash^H^H^^H^H jira
folder :)
Actually what does everyone think of redirecting jira notices to
the scm list, and leave David's
:)
Actually what does everyone think of redirecting jira notices to
the scm
list, and leave David's awesome summary reports coming to this list?
-dain
On Apr 6, 2006, at 4:20 PM, David Blevins wrote:
All, we have a new report to be embarrassed ^H^H^H motivated by.
If you have a moment, look
On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37 PM, James Strachan wrote:
On 4/4/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:12 AM, James Strachan wrote:
so I'm sure the XBean/OpenEJB folks will be implementing this
anyway.
I'm not yet at that point in understanding what Dave B. has already
On Apr 5, 2006, at 2:30 AM, James Strachan wrote:
On 4/5/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37 PM, James Strachan wrote:
On 4/4/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good point - though before JSR 250 EJB 3, when Pico was just
starting, I tended to use
On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:12 AM, James Strachan wrote:
so I'm sure the XBean/OpenEJB folks will be implementing this
anyway.
I'm not yet at that point in understanding what Dave B. has already
done in OpenEJB 3, but you're right it will be of high priority to
implement.
Agreed. Adding support
That seems reasonable to me.
On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
+1
-dain
On Mar 24, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Currently if you use the command-line deploy tool, you have to
specify
different deploy commands depending on whether the module is already
deployed.
On Mar 27, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I thought this ugly hack was necessary to get around the web class
loader being a different class loader than the configuration class
loader. IIRC the trick was to leave the object as a byte array
until the actual web class loader was
of the Geronimo PMC?
Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the
need to
have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it
graduates.
Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we
Seriously, people. Let's refrain from sensational emails whose only
point is to make things worse.
We are all here cause we want to work together and make great
communities, software and a better ASF.
-David
On Mar 17, 2006, at 10:23 AM, lichtner wrote:
I wanted to see what this
On Mar 17, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Our top level pom.xml lists all the modules that M2 must traverse to
build them individually. We currently have around 40 modules specified
in the list. We'll soon add some more and then move on to adding 53
configs, 16 applications, 7 plugins
On Mar 17, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Really ? When I first cut my teeth with m2 working on itests, I
remember something like having to make the artifactid and directory
same. But if that is not the case, then great ! We can/should go
ahead
and create intermediate pom.xmls for
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal
eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
On Mar 9, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Sorry, was referring to this thread. Seems like it's winding
down and just looking for a clear idea of what the current
thinking is.
David,
since you are here - a few SFSB questions...
what provisions does
On Mar 11, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
David,
If you can have a go at answering the questions I have posed about
[Open]EJB in my other posting on this thread, I will merge your
answers into the model I am carrying around in my head and dump it
into an email as soon as I can.
On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:09 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Sorry, was referring to this thread. Seems like it's winding
down and just looking for a clear idea of what the current
thinking is.
Hi David - allow me to wind it up again :-)
I am particularly interested in your
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GBUILD-16?page=all ]
David Blevins updated GBUILD-16:
Summary: Improve GBuild agent JMS reconnect logic (was: GBuild agent JMS
reconnect logic is incorrect)
The activemq feature could potentially be our
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GBUILD-15?page=comments#action_12369696 ]
David Blevins commented on GBUILD-15:
-
Something that just popped into my head on this one is that we should make the
.properties extension a configurable option, moreover
On Mar 8, 2006, at 11:22 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Mar 8, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
Hi All,
I'm wrapping up the servlet 2.5 spec work and I'm wondering where
the put the javaee_5.xsd and the
javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd schema docs? They are not part
of the servlet
For myself and others can someone post a real short summary of where
this conversation is at?
-David
Sorry, was referring to this thread. Seems like it's winding down
and just looking for a clear idea of what the current thinking is.
-David
On Mar 7, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Looks good.
-dain
On Mar 6, 2006, at 12:49 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
My
On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 2/10/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reposting from openejb-dev to increase awareness.
Ok, so I've been creating jira items like crazy and worked on
creating a confluence page with the state of our efforts.
http://www.openejb.org
This is something we could potentially add.
How far down the security hole do you need to go?
1. Prevent tempering (secure hash of args/return values)
2. Prevent reading (encryption)
3. Proving client identity (mutual auth)
I'm guessing 2, but throwing out the other options.
-David
On Mar
What more generic network protocol layer?
-David
On Mar 6, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
By that we mean, you must authenticate to access the EJB, but the data
transferred between client and server and back is not encrypted.
We have a more generic network protocol layer around, but
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
In addition it would be good to have a SubProjects box in the
left hand side on the front page with direct links to each subproject.
+1
-David
- sachin
On Feb 27, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
yup, it makes more sense to
+1
On Feb 23, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
Please vote on the release of the eclipse plugin for Geronimo
1.0.0. Keep in mind a update manager patch will be made available
to support 1.0.1 after it is released.
[+1] Release v1.0.0 of the eclipse plugin supporting G 1.0
[-1] Do
On Feb 25, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
2006/2/25, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It does seem odd that the tab labeled 'Subprojects' links to
a page that is only about the devtools subproject. Maybe the tab
should be renamed 'Devtools'?
Sure. It could point Devtools,
with Geronimo and/or others, we should
release a 1.4.1 based on trunk...
What do you think ?
We certified on the 1.4 branch too. I'd be happy if it was released
also.
I'll start a vote thread as Dims suggests.
Thanks for the feedback!
-David
Regards
Guillaume
David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 23
old now compared to trunk.
Hey Dims, can you weigh in on this? I'm not really comfortable yet
making unilateral decisions on big release and versioning topics.
Some hand holding would be good while I learn the ropes.
-David
-Original Message-
From: David Blevins [mailto:[EMAIL
On Feb 21, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Feb 21, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
6/2/21, continuum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Online report : http://ci.gbuild.org/continuum/servlet/continuum/
target/ProjectBuild.vm/view/ProjectBuild/id/61/buildId/602
Build statistics:
State:
On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Setup old version of CORBA specs for temporary use until the new
CORBA specs can pass the TCK.
Continuum's not happy with your commit.
...
default:
modules:default:
modules:reactor:init:
Starting the reactor...
Our processing order:
On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:12 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I would like to propose the following test strategy.
1. Fix existing openejb itests such that they can be reintegrated back
into the builds.
On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:10 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I have completed items 1 and 3 of the test
break the infrastructure again without knowing it.
Especially with all the maven2 conversion stuff going on.
Thanks,
-David
On 2/21/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:12 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I would like to propose the following test strategy.
1. Fix
Just throwing this out there:
The basic directory structure for maven2 is ${parent.artifactId}/$
{artifactId}. If we deviate from that we'll have to do crazy things
like put a precise scm url in each pom.xml.
This means two things:
1. there needs to be modules/pom.xml which is the
On Feb 21, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Works for me. I don't remember ServiceMix and ActiveMQ having a
podling
PMC. How is Yoko different?
It's not; it's ActiveMQ and ServiceMix that are
On Feb 21, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 21, 2006, at 5:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 21, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
True. The itests setup (infrastructure) which was broken by the move
has been restored. Itests can now be plugged in and run
successfully
On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Manu George wrote:
Hi,
I have a query regarding Axis. In Axis we can deploy
message based web services with a WSDD as shown below
deployment
xmlns=http://xml.apache.org/axis/wsdd/;
xmlns:java= http://xml.apache.org/axis/wsdd/providers/java;
On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:20 PM, Manu George wrote:
Hi,
I have a query regarding Axis. In Axis we can deploy
message based web services with a WSDD as shown below
deployment
xmlns=http://xml.apache.org/axis/wsdd/;
xmlns:java= http://xml.apache.org/axis/wsdd/providers/java;
in Geronimo 1.0 we had
to take our own snapshot. David Blevins could probably point you
right to that one.
Manu George wrote:
Hi,
Where can I checkout the latest axis source code used in
geronimo? The
code I got from the axis site seems to be a different version
Thanks
Manu
Aaron, looks like we lost timmy and jimmy on the 7th. Do you know
what the status of those machines is?
-David
I can certainly carry out my duties to help on this one.
I guess I'd be looking at some direction from my fellow axis people
on what we want to do with the 1.4 final branch. Specifically, do
we want to release trunk or the 1.4 branch?
-David
On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Matt Hogstrom
Nope. Tomorrow is fine.
On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
There was a power outage and I forgot to check whether the machines
came back afterward. I'll be back in the office tomorrow -- do they
need to be restarted before then?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 2/17/06, David Blevins
flexible?
I don't think there is any fundamental reason but right now it is
coded that way and in the limited time I've been able to look at it
I haven't seen how to disentangle it. David Blevins might have a
better idea how to approach this.
The webservices support in OpenEJB and Geronimo
On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:25 AM, Gianny Damour wrote:
Then I don't understand why it would save us any work *now*? How
could
m1 and m2 know about the dependencies if there were no project.xml or
pom.xml, respectively? Once we provide pom.xml's, I understand it
would be the next step to just call
On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 2/15/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every m2 project i've worked with eventually ended up leveraging
maven 1 repositories.
We'd likely use the maven-one-plugin which puts jars into a maven 1
repo. Also we'd likely still need
This is also awkward and not quite right. But throwing it out there
hoping someone can think of something better
compound-name
name-component
keybase-name/key
valuegeronimo.maven:J2EEServer=geronimo/value
name-component
/compound-name
-David
On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:59
On Feb 15, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Anders Hessellund Jensen wrote:
geronimo-system has some jelly to create a geronimo-
version.properties file.
Check out how I create the openejb-version.properties via the maven-
antrun-plugin here:
:
I prefer to have them a properties, and then we can support
multiple naming systems and use them for future extension.
I like properties as well.
-dain
On Feb 15, 2006, at 12:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
This is also awkward and not quite right. But throwing it out
there hoping someone
On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
So we should call it something like:
configuration
...
naming-properties
property
namebase-name/name
valuegeronimo.maven:J2EEServer=geronimo/value
/property
/naming
On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:04 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
So we should call it something like:
configuration
...
naming-properties
On Feb 13, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
What would folks think of (in principle, not right now) splitting out
the core Geronimo components from anything that wraps a 3rd-party
product/project? So have one area for modules like kernel, security,
core, system, etc. and a separate area
On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Woah, this doesn't look good...
Yeah. I tried adding geronimo-spec-j2ee to the continuum builds on
GBuild. Obviously, it's not too happy there...
I tried recreating locally (checking out
On Feb 14, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On 2/14/2006 3:09 AM, Anders Hessellund Jensen (Trifork) wrote:
I'd like to help migrating to maven 2.
Where to start? I suppose a good start would be to write POM's for
some of the modules. This should be fairly straightforward, at
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Is there an easy way to do this with m1? I'm concerned about
having two dependency lists: one in the project.xml and one in the
pom.xml. Is there a tool that can merge the project.xml
dependencies into a template pom.xml?
If there was
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
How can XBean be out of scope but modules/kernel is not?
If we're going to switch Geronimo over to XBean, then yes, it's in
scope. But the answers to my question never said that. It was
ServiceMix and Jetty
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Anders Hessellund Jensen wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Why don't we:
- use an non-conflicting groupId like org.apache.geronimo-m2 or
something specifically for conversion
- set it up in our continuum install as another project
- and continuously build
On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:30 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Is there an easy way to do this with m1? I'm concerned about
having two dependency lists: one in the project.xml and one
On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
How can XBean be out of scope but modules/kernel is not?
If we're going to switch Geronimo over to XBean, then yes, it's
in scope
I could use jaxb support now. I'd like to use it instead of castor
or xmlbeans for marshalling deployment descriptors -- or rather with
castor or xmlbeans if either of them implement jaxb.
I didn't know Axis2 was going to implement jaxb. Are the xmlbeans
guys going to implement it too?
On Feb 13, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 2/13/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could use jaxb support now. I'd like to use it instead of castor
or xmlbeans for marshalling deployment descriptors -- or rather with
castor or xmlbeans if either of them implement jaxb.
I
On Feb 10, 2006, at 5:36 PM, David Blevins wrote:
One note, we are publishing the 1.0 jars with the snapshot jars
which we probably should not do. It means there is one jar here,
for example:
http://cvs.apache.org/repository/org.apache.geronimo.specs/jars/
geronimo-jms_1.1_spec-1.0.jar
and their build working again?
-David
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: February 10, 2006 10:10:34 AM PST
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Cc: Rick McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Axis 1.X HEAD broken
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
On Feb 10, 2006, at 7
Yes Sir, Thank You Sir!
Let me know when they're up and I'll check those puppies into Axis scm.
-David
On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Applied and commited. You need me to deploy these puppies?
Regards,
Alan
On 2/10/2006 10:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Hey Alan,
I
Reposting from openejb-dev to increase awareness.
Ok, so I've been creating jira items like crazy and worked on
creating a confluence page with the state of our efforts.
http://www.openejb.org/OpenEJB+3+RoadMap
Let me know what you think.
What's in there now is mosly EJB 3 simplification
/...
-David
On Feb 10, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Uploaded
Regards,
Alan
On 2/10/2006 12:12 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Yes Sir, Thank You Sir!
Let me know when they're up and I'll check those puppies into Axis
scm.
-David
On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote
Prasad
On 1/31/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone thought about using TestNG?
Its xml suite def and grouping support would be nice to define
these itest suites.
--jason
-Original Message-
From: David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:41:39
To:dev
On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:28 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi,
I was just looking into these issues in regard to the activemq and
servicemix sites. I really do like confluence a ton and would
eventually like to see be part of the ASF infrastructure.
What I would like is to just
At first blush it looks like there are just three util classes that
make the javamail-transport module dependent on our specific javamail
implementation.
[javac] import org.apache.geronimo.mail.util.Hex;
[javac] import org.apache.geronimo.mail.util.Base64;
[javac] import
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
At first blush it looks like there are just three util classes
that make the javamail-transport module dependent on our specific
javamail implementation.
[javac] import org.apache.geronimo.mail.util.Hex;
[javac
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
At first blush it looks like there are just three util classes
that make the javamail-transport module dependent on our
specific javamail
We're going to need another continuum install for building the
openejb 3 stuff and servicemix and anything else that wants to build
under 1.5.
Is there anyone out there with some bandwidth to do this?
-David
Replying primarily for the people on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Further
replies should probably just go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone correct me if I'm
wrong.
On Feb 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To quote Atlassian: Confluence will likely die if slashdotted, so
shouldn't
be used as a
On Feb 2, 2006, at 8:57 PM, David Blevins wrote:
We may get a few false build failed messages in the next couple
hours, please disregard them.
I'll give an all clear when all the projects have run.
ALL CLEAR
-David
On Feb 3, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Why aren't the spec jars for 1.0 published to the Maven 1 central repo
in addition to the central Maven 2 repo?
fyi, http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository/
org.apache.geronimo.specs/jars/
-David
New snapshots are up:
http://dist.codehaus.org/openejb/jars/?M=D
On Feb 2, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
you may be able to download a tarball from here (I can't get their
new svn to work...) -- http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org/trunk/
openejb2/ Codehaus seems to be experiencing
The database on our continuum install became corrupted about 4 hours
ago, so I decided to take the time to upgrade to the latest official
release 1.0.2. I've just finished installing all of the projects and
setting up the notifiers, etc.
Most of the projects have built and are good. I've
Don't bother. Just throw it in the OpenEJB jira http://
jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB. You'll even get your name on the
front page of the website for a while (http://www.openejb.org/).
I took a look at the patch. Very excellent. Didn't realize how much
had changed since we broke them
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:44 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Think of what the alternative is that you are asking the end
developer to cope w/. He must grok what is the current correct
collection of versions are. Even if all the APIs mature and their
version numbers never change thereafter, there
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
As I expressed previously, I think it is a bigger mess to be unable
to determine the contents of the uber-spec jar. If you can suggest
a way to make it easy to find out which individual spec jars are
aggregated into the uber-spec jar, I
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies, would
the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
For maven 2 all we need is an uber pom. For people on maven 1 and
ant and plain IDEs, an uber jar is nice.
-David
It's probably going to be you doing this work, so ultimately, you are
the one who decides what you want to write. I will just say that you
and I share the same goals, but your proposal goes against the grain
of maven which fundamentally combines build/test. Anytime you do
that, it's
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:44 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:37 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:14 AM, David Jencks wrote:
As I expressed previously, I think it is a bigger mess to be
unable to determine the contents of the uber-spec jar. If you
can
On Jan 30, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote, On 1/30/2006 11:39 AM:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies,
would the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
For maven 2 all we need
On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I would like to solicit the views of others too like you and get their
views and opinions.
Great. I poked some other people in irc to get involved as well.
Here is hoping :) More input is going to make for a better
community
On Jan 29, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 29, 2006, at 1:41 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:51 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 28, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I've updated the trunk of Geronimo Specs to 1.1-SNAPSHOT. The
thinking is that we
On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:12 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
On the list of Dain's Roamap, tasks and things to do list,
integration tests that cover servlets, webservices and jms was quite
at the top.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg16593.html
I would like to propose the following
On Jan 29, 2006, at 3:13 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 29, 2006, at 2:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 29, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 29, 2006, at 1:41 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:51 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 28, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Alan D
901 - 1000 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
