i've been getting very confused by some behavior related to being
logged in and authentication while working with jetspeed, and I hope
someone can shed some light on what should be happening.
Lets suppose you have a web app with some secured resources and some
unsecured resources.
If you
2006/1/6, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bruce Snyder wrote, On 1/5/2006 4:26 PM:
Then we should probably consider making a decision that the HEAD
should contain 2.x work only. If any fixes need to be done to the 1.x
code then proper branching and tagging should occur to facilitate
log4j.properties's category is ignored
--
Key: GERONIMO-1423
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1423
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Versions: 1.0
Environment: JRE 1.5.0_06, Linux
Reporter: viewhero
2006/1/6, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree we don't want too many branches.
Hi John,
Well, we should get used to them ;) Especially when Java EE 5 work
takes off. I think there will be more refactorings than ever before.
It's going to be lots of fun (sarcasm).
Will fixes for the 1.0.1
2006/1/6, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Apache Geronimo team is proud to announce the availability of Geronimo
Version 1.0 for immediate download. Please visit
http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.html.
Hi Matt,
Good job and thanks for taking care of the 1.0 release! I learnt lots
of
Hi friends,
With new release of Geronimo-1.0, my code
is working correctly.
Rakesh Ranjan
From: Ranjan, Rakesh (Cognizant)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006
10:01 AM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: problem with
Geronimo-1.0
I think that doing new development on the HEAD is the way to go, i.e.
2.0 development should happen here. Then what goes on the 1.x branch
(es) is maintenance and bug fixing. This will certainly serve to
stabilize (and perhaps even stall) development on 1.x; but that is
not a bad thing.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1423?page=all ]
viewhero updated GERONIMO-1423:
---
Description:
log4j.properties that is included war file's WEB-INF/classes.
like this.
The servlet 2.4 spec, section 12.7 states:
A security identity, or principal, must always be provided for use in a
call to an enterprise bean. The default mode in calls to enterprise
beans from web applications is for the security identity of a web user
to be propagated to the EJBTM
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Really amazing!
Congrats
+1.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
-- dims
On 1/5/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache Geronimo team is proud to announce the availability of Geronimo
Version 1.0 for immediate download. Please visit
Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hmm, again we have stopped the discussion :). Lets get it started again.
OK - I will pick it up. I've been a bit preoccupied with WADI for a
while, so apologies for letting this one go cold.
So can we all come to some agreement (with more discussion) on which
I am using
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1.0.0. I
keep getting the following error. Is anyone else
having this problem?
Thnaks
Anita
+
| geronimo and geronimo-plugins Geronimo :: Jetty
| Memory: 27M/37M
Never mind.. My mistake. I made webConnector a
managed object instead of TomcatWebConnector. my
apologies...
Thanks
anita
--- anita kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am using
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1.0.0.
I
keep getting the following error. Is anyone
Could someone please update the web site? I just checked in a few
changes. I'm not sure what the procedure is to update the real site
with the updated SVN content.
Also, the links to the signature files for the 1.0 source code
downloads are broken. I'm not sure if the links are pointing to the
done
- sachin
On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Could someone please update the web site? I just checked in a few
changes. I'm not sure what the procedure is to update the real site
with the updated SVN content.
Also, the links to the signature files for the 1.0 source code
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 be from
this code base we'd branch to a 1.1 when appropriate.
I'm updating my local copy
I think we've now crossed teh chasm to where there are two types of users.
Developers of Geronimo and Users of Geronimo. So far this thread has been
talking about developers but I think we also need a User section that describes
teh process of installation from a downloaded binary rather than
I agree with Matt. If you want to call it an Installation document,
then it must be geared towards the users installing Geronimo. They care
little about building it. They would be the ones downloading the
binaries and wanting to get G up and running quickly.
The steps being discussed in this
If this means that we can get an archive again for the IRC chat then I'm
fine with it. I'm not sure of the other implications for items like
open source tracking, problems, etc (sounds like some possible
duplication) . I'm just interested in capturing the IRC data at the
moment.
Do any
Whoa ! This doesn't look good. I have an ant script that builds G by
taking a version number as a parameter/property. This will enable
us to have nightly builds of G at multiple versions in the future.
Having hardcoded versions like this will break that ability.
Aaron, thanx for that grep output.
Hi all,
for getting Geronimo up and running really fast, there is already the *Quick start - Apache Geronimo
for the impatient* section where you get it running right from the binaries.
My original idea for the *Installation* section was to have a complete set of instructions for
downloading
I would recommend then not using the term Installation. Even with IT
guys this typically implies installing some piece of software to simply
use it ... not to setup for development and building. Perhaps Setup for
Developers would be a better heading or if we must continue to use
Installation
2006/1/6, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
HEAD will be 2.0 which includes JEE 5 and other significant work (Maven 2
conversion, etc.)
Hi Matt,
That's my understanding, too.
Branches/1.0 will be where the work for 1.0.x will take place. It would be
from
this code base we'd branch to a
Correct Additional Samples redirect url
--
Key: GERONIMO-1424
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1424
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Reporter: Dave Colasurdo
Priority: Minor
The Geronimo Welcome page
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1424?page=all ]
Dave Colasurdo updated GERONIMO-1424:
-
Attachment: sampleRedirect.patch
Correct Additional Samples redirect url
-
Key: GERONIMO-1424
I don't think it's possible yet but we are getting closer.
Regards,
Hiram
On Jan 1, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
+1
Would it be possible to do it with m2 ?
Guillaume
James Strachan wrote:
Now that ActiveMQ has dotted the 'i's and crossed the 't's of
most of the incubation
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jules, I think you are spot on with a summary at this point. At least
in my conversations a person's view of clustering is influenced by
which aspect of clustering they are intersted in. I think a short doc
would be really helpful here. Were you planning on doing that
how about this structure
Installation
Supported platforms
Hardware and software prerequisites
Getting the software
Getting the binaries
Getting the source code
Build from the source
complete build
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 where the work for 1.0.x will take place. It
would be from this code base we'd branch
I have been fooling around with apache jetspeed and found their
installation instructions (which is linked from their download page) to
be pretty useful.
http://portals.apache.org/jetspeed-2/download.html#Installation_Instructions
Getting Started with Jetspeed-2 InstallerGetting Started with
Thanks Kevan...I was going to ask about TC as 5.1.15 was not found:)...leaving
at 5.1.9 for now. Other changes in and building now.
Kevan Miller wrote:
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
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1424?page=all ]
Sachin Patel reassigned GERONIMO-1424:
--
Assign To: Sachin Patel
Correct Additional Samples redirect url
-
Key: GERONIMO-1424
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1424?page=all ]
Sachin Patel resolved GERONIMO-1424:
Fix Version: 1.0
Resolution: Fixed
patch applied
Correct Additional Samples redirect url
-
On Jan 6, 2006, at 4:20 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
2006/1/6, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Apache Geronimo 1.0 introduces complete J2EE 1.4 certification,
support for Java
Business Integration (JBI)
I don't understand it. How do we support JBI? Do we provide a
configuration for
-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
The tomcat version used in the source at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1.0.0/
is 5.5.12, whereas the tomcat version used in the
released binaries is 5.5.9. The following problem does
not occur in 5.5.9.
Thnaks
Anita
--- anita kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am also seeing this on win XP:
assemble:package-assembly:
[echo] Preparing CRLF line endings in text based
files for zip
distribution
BUILD FAILED
File.. C:\Documents and
Settings\User\.maven\cache\geronimo-assembly-plugin-1.1.2\plugin.jelly
Element... ant:fixcrlf
On Jan 6, 2006, at 12:39 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
The tomcat version used in the source at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1.0.0/
is 5.5.12, whereas the tomcat version used in the
released binaries is 5.5.9. The following problem does
not occur in 5.5.9.
Hi Anita,
Jules,
no I was thiking more of WADI and ActiveCluster as complimentry. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I was thinking about amerge more in terms of consolidating effort/energy into one area without been spread too thin. But there seems to be enough intrest and people and maynot be a concern.
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 that is leading to a
release is likely to cause only confusion, not progress towards
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 believe that
having more than one main development area that is leading to a release
is likely to cause only confusion, not
-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
access to unprotected web resource after login does not use correct Subject
---
Key: GERONIMO-1425
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1425
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
I think it would be nice to behave like you're describing, but I
believe that the spec does not require it. That is, if the default
principal is anonymous and the current user is aaron, I think it's
legit to have protected pages use the aaron subject and
non-protected pages use the anonymous
On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:42 PM, John Sisson wrote:
I have encountered some Geronimo shutdown issues with ActiveMQ on
the 1.0 release candidate on Solaris 10 x86 under VMWare.
Can you be more specific? How about a stack trace.
-dain
David has a compelling argument...
I am concerned about delivering j2ee 1.4 features and release over
the next year while jee5 is written. I don't want to repeat the
lesson we all learned with the very very long gap between m3 and m4.
With out micro kernel design, don't you think we
Once I finish the suddenly-urgent mountain of book work, I have a lot
more console and management stuff to work on. There's no reason that
has to wait for a rewritten CORBA stack, EJB3 container, security
stack, etc., much less all the new specs and JSRs. So I certainly
plan to contribute to a
2006/1/6, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Either I don't understand what is being proposed or I think it is a
recipe for disaster.
Hi Dave,
I think there might be the third option ;)
My past experience with open source projects leads me to believe that
having more than one main development
DatabasePoolPortlet gets NPE when saving
Key: GERONIMO-1426
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1426
Project: Geronimo
Type: Bug
Components: console
Versions: 1.0
Environment: Windows XP, MySQL
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1426?page=all ]
Cary Clark updated GERONIMO-1426:
-
Description:
From a clean Geronimo 1.0 install:
* Log in to console
* add mysql-connector-java-3.1.12-bin.jar as a Common Library
Group: mysql
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1426?page=comments#action_12362012
]
Cary Clark commented on GERONIMO-1426:
--
I also tested with Blocking Timeout: 12 and Idle Timeout: 3 with the same
results
DatabasePoolPortlet gets NPE when
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 believe
that having more than one main development area that is leading to
a release is
I agree and do not advocate upgrading releases. However, Jetty I think is a
requirements as there is a security hole. As far as Tomcat is concerned I'll
defer that decision to you :)
Matt
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote, On 1/6/2006
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:42 PM, John Sisson wrote:
I have encountered some Geronimo shutdown issues with ActiveMQ on
the 1.0 release candidate on Solaris 10 x86 under VMWare.
Can you be more specific? How about a stack trace.
-dain
GERONIMO-1422 has an attachment with
Hi Manu,
You are once again correct: let's remove this read-only decorator - this
was a very bad idea - at least if the field is a PK one. This read only
behavior was intended to prevent developers from changing a relationship
to a CMP having a coumpond PK with multiple fields. Indeed, in
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1427?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-1427:
---
Attachment: separate-openejb-2.diff
The attached patch creates 4 new configurations for openejb, axis,
openejb-builder, and axis-builder, and adds
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1342?page=comments#action_12362041
]
wai yung commented on GERONIMO-1342:
The problem is kernel related.
I upgraded my kernel to 2.4 and the bug is fixed.
Startup error
-
Key:
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1427?page=comments#action_12362042
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-1427:
I applied the patch,
Sendingassemblies/j2ee-jetty-server/project.xml
Sending
59 matches
Mail list logo
