On 7/4/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is there is a high likelyhood that we will need to also extend
the MessageStore interface to provide some cursoring ablilities. So the
change is not going to just be sefcontained in the broker region package.
Ah I see - in that
These are all good questions.. And that's why I kinda was think a branch
would be good since it would alow folks to go crazy figuring out the best
solution and not have to work about breaking things while the changes are in
progress.
On 7/4/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
+1
Thanks for the patch!
Nate
On 7/4/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be on it's way to your gmail account.
On 7/4/06, Nathan Mittler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Hiram,
Looks ok at first glance - could you send me the patch file as an
attachment? I seem to be
problem with auto-ack and messages being redelivered in Stomp clients
-
Key: AMQ-793
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-793
Project: ActiveMQ
Type: Bug
Versions: 4.0.1
Hiram,
BTW, did you run the activemq-cpp cpp-unit tests against the broker with the
new stomp transport? I took a look at your code and it looks like you still
have the request-id/response-id headers in there, so it should work fine.
Looks a lot simpler - easier to find your way around.
Nate
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-793?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino resolved AMQ-793:
---
Resolution: Fixed
new stomp client which fixes this has been backported to 4.0 also.
problem with auto-ack and messages being redelivered in Stomp
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-787?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-787:
--
Fix Version: 4.0.2
The UdpTransport could potentialy fail to bind on linux.. caused the
UdpTransportTest to fail sometimes.
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-787?page=comments#action_36523 ]
Hiram Chirino commented on AMQ-787:
---
Fix also applied to 4.0 branch rev 419025.
The UdpTransport could potentialy fail to bind on linux.. caused the
UdpTransportTest to
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-794?page=all ]
james strachan resolved AMQ-794:
Resolution: Fixed
Done - you can now disable advisory support via
broker advisorySupport=false...
or
BrokerService broker = new BrokerService();
security plugin to deal with temporary queue and topics better
--
Key: AMQ-795
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-795
Project: ActiveMQ
Type: Improvement
Reporter: james strachan
On Jul 3, 2006, at 10:27 PM, John Sisson wrote:
IMO, a vote for a patch would be need to be restarted if the
changes between the previous patch and the newer version of the
patch are not trivial. Trival meaning:
* documentation changes
* non-controversial non-semantic style changes such as
On 7/3/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because m2 work is not the only work that's going on. Not all work has
stopped. You are only speaking of the m2 conversion work. There are
other efforts underway.
Again, I don't follow. If a change is applied to trunk, why shouldn't
it be
Hi,
Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to
the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it
*without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-)
The branch is available at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration.
Who's responsible for keeping this branch in sync with trunk?
Specifically who is going to merge changes from trunk to this branch
and/or apply patches to this branch when they are applied to trunk?
--jason
On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:29 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/3/06, Alan D. Cabrera
On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's responsible for keeping this branch in sync with trunk?
Specifically who is going to merge changes from trunk to this branch
and/or apply patches to this branch when they are applied to trunk?
I'd be glad to do so. In other words - it's
Brave man! Doesn't look like much fun:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-
book.html#svn.branchmerge.commonuses.wholebr
But, maybe no one will commit anything to trunk over the next days/
weeks/months :-P
* * *
Does anyone know off hand if the Subversion peeps are going to
Has anyone used SVK to facilitate full branch merging at all?
--jason
On Jul 4, 2006, at 12:10 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's responsible for keeping this branch in sync with trunk?
Specifically who is going to merge changes from trunk to
On Jul 4, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Has anyone used SVK to facilitate full branch merging at all?
I used svk while I was working on jetspeed 2/geronimo integration.
However, I wasn't a jetspeed committer at the time so don't know how
well actually committing sets of
I found it invaluable to track my work locally and be able to merge
in trunk changes and produce patches, but IIRC none of the patches
I produced could be applied by patch. So, it would probably help
single developers but might not improve communication or enable review
I would not expect
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-477?page=all ]
Renaud Bruyeron updated SM-477:
---
Attachment: patch.txt
this patch fixes the issue above: when the exchange is Done (i.e. in-only or
robust-in-only) we send a HTTP 202 instead of the default
Attached is an updated diff with the same version numbers as
requested. I just used the versions from the project.xml... someone
should double check.
Spits out:
/Users/jason/.m2/repository/org/tranql/tranql-connector/1.2-SNAPSHOT/
tranql-connector-1.2-SNAPSHOT.jar
On 7/4/06, Lalit Nagpal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am a absolute new starter in the field of MOM although I worked on MQ
Series sometime back.
Welcome! :)
But totally new to ActiveMQ ... need to pick up on
ActiveMQ.
Can somebody guide me as to how to get started on this.
I'd start
I looked this over and applied it.
It appears that the versions in project.xml (and now the poms) are
lower than those expected by geronimo, e.g. tranql version is 1.3-
SNAPSHOT but geronimo is using 1.4-SNAPSHOT, connector version is 1.2-
SNAPSHOT but geronimo is using 1.3-SNAPSHOT.
Does
On Jul 4, 2006, at 12:43 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I found it invaluable to track my work locally and be able to merge
in trunk changes and produce patches, but IIRC none of the patches
I produced could be applied by patch. So, it would probably help
single developers but might not improve
On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I looked this over and applied it.
Cool.
It appears that the versions in project.xml (and now the poms) are
lower than those expected by geronimo, e.g. tranql version is 1.3-
SNAPSHOT but geronimo is using 1.4-SNAPSHOT, connector version is
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2164?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder updated GERONIMO-2164:
---
Fix Version: 1.1.1
Creating SQL- based security realm fails
Key: GERONIMO-2164
URL:
Jacek,
When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
understand the M2
Hi, I'm trying to integrate servicemix-bpe bpel engine into servicemix-web
and trying to deploy it under tomcat but I have many problems to insert the
wsdl files. when I try to deploy I have theese errors:
4-lug-2006 10.26.54 org.apache.servicemix.jbi.framework.ComponentMBeanImpl
FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for
qualifying open source usage:
http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html
:-)
--jason
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Jacek,
When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this
just wishful thinking?
Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory
layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to
HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths
will
Hi Sachin,One observation: In trunk\assembly\src\main\assembly\deployable.xml file, I changed formatzip/format to formatdir/format and ran mvn -o -e assembly:assembly from the assembly directory. I got the following errors:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2066?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha updated GERONIMO-2066:
-
Attachment: openejb.patch
This patch is built against rev 2721. The code as is does not build. The patch
adds the following -
1. use
Hey Hiram,
Looks ok at first glance - could you send me the patch file as an
attachment? I seem to be having problems applying the patch through copy
paste into subclipse.
Thanks,
Nate
On 7/3/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Please review the following patch. It
The openejb rev 2721 does not build as is. There are many other
versions which need to be changed. I have attached a refreshed patch to
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2066.
Thanks
Anita
--- Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is a patch that changes the TranQL
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2066?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha updated GERONIMO-2066:
-
Attachment: openejb.patch
This patch openejb-2.patch adds the g-dependency.xml to openejb-builder. Please
use either openejb.patch or
Now we must use the org.openejb groupId in Geronimo. As of rev
418907 Geronimo is still using openejb as groupId. I will be happy to
provide a patch.
Thanks
Anita
--- anita kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The openejb rev 2721 does not build as is. There are many other
versions
BTW AMQ-792 is now fixed - details here...
http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/consumer-dispatch-async.html
so the only real pending issue so far that I'm aware of for dealing
with slow consumers is AMQ-791 (spooling to disk)...
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-791
Unless folks
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-688?page=all ]
james strachan resolved AMQ-688:
Resolution: Duplicate
AFAIK this issue is now complete with the exception of issue:
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-791 which is still
I'm happy to move the configs to the daytrader tree as well as the applications/daytrader which
builds a derby database.
I don't see a reason for them to remain in the 1.2 tree.
DJencks...thoughts?
Hi,
I had a look to the patch and I think that it will take me about one
night to review it. As I will be on holidays this Friday, only 2 nights
left, and away from any computer for 3 weeks, I am happy to vote now if
need be.
I do have a couple of questions, more for my education than
Perhaps we could have a discussion about what we're trying to
accomplish in the 1.2 release, and who the release manager is going to
be? There were a large number of thoughts in the notes from the
JavaOne meeting, and we've discussed the schedule at least a bit, but
perhaps we need to reconsider
I took a look at the patch, it looks like it should work without impacting
anything.
-
Timothy A. Bish
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Tuesday, July
Gianny Damour wrote:
Hi,
I had a look to the patch and I think that it will take me about one
night to review it. As I will be on holidays this Friday, only 2
nights left, and away from any computer for 3 weeks, I am happy to
vote now if need be.
I do have a couple of questions, more for
I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers. This is a snippet from
Ken's personal web page:
Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May
2006) I changed the project's development model from CTR
Hello Milan,
Thanks for your interest in Apache Geronimo. You can subscribe to our mailing lists and find out
other information about Apache Geronimo at http://geronimo.apache.org.
We are currently reworking our build environment in our trunk environment (1.2-SNAPSHOT) and
starting work on
I think in general you are correct John. Although, from what I've seen the people that are
reviewing the patches are working with the submitter and then when they're happy give they're +1. I
believe the spirit of RTC is being met through the current process. Personally I'd prefer to not
Alan,
This was the situation I described in an earlier e-mail about not providing a patch for an RTC. I
think generally describing the activities and getting the votes should be adequate.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We had talked about breaking out the Geronimo specs so that they don't
share the
Would you still be using packaging plugin to package a car? The
daytrader was a special case in the packaging plugin because it
generated more than one artifact (in maven terminology).
Thanks
Anita
--- Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy to move the configs to the daytrader
I think the Maven 2 work is a significant project. It appears to me that RTC has worked really well
in increasing e-mail traffic on the list exponentially but I too would agree that it has not been
totally productive. Here is my assessment:
1. Everyone agrees that this work needs to be done.
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-481?page=comments#action_36524 ]
Philip Dodds commented on SM-481:
-
Added new test to org.apache.servicemix.http.HttpProviderTest.java which has a
640k message on an InOut with a provider. The test passed.
David / Jason
The version number for tranql/trunk/tranql/ was incorrect. I've corrected the version numbers for
connector and tranql to 1.3-SNAPSHOT and 1.4-SNAPSHOT accordingly.
David Jencks wrote:
I looked this over and applied it.
It appears that the versions in project.xml (and now
Sent a note in a related thread asking to have RTC suspended for this activity and let the work
proceed in trunk directly.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this
just wishful thinking?
Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the
Thanks guys.. the patch is now applied.
On 7/4/06, Timothy Bish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a look at the patch, it looks like it should work without impacting
anything.
-
Timothy A. Bish
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From:
whew... thanks for clearing that up Matt!On 7/4/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers.This is a snippet fromKen's personal web page:Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday
make the support of advisory messages optional (so that they can be disabled to
reduce RAM and boost performance a little)
--
Key: AMQ-794
URL:
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2135?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino resolved GERONIMO-2135:
-
Resolution: Fixed
thanks for the review guys. patch is applied now.
Improve the ActiveMQ GBeans
---
This is one of the many fixes that are included with GERONIMO-2161
--jason
On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:52 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Now we must use the org.openejb groupId in Geronimo. As of rev
418907 Geronimo is still using openejb as groupId. I will be happy to
provide a patch.
Thanks
On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:21 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this
just wishful thinking?
Well... both I guess. But given our reality its more of the later.
Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory
layout in the
Needed to change the artifactId of the modules/ pom to just
'modules' (from 'openejb-modules). With this change, Continuum/
Maven2 should create the correct SCM URLs... which means that CI can
start building the new tree.
Still pending some configuration on where to deploy to, but will get
Ooops... forgot about updating parent elements. New patch attached
will actually build ;-)
--jason
openejb-scm2-v2.diff
Description: Binary data
On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Needed to change the artifactId of the modules/ pom to just
'modules' (from
Can anyone shed some light onto why this might have happened?
Something changed in my workspace last night... but not sure what, as
this only recently started to fail consistently w/Corba J2EE Client.
rant
This is one reason why its a massive pain to work for so many days
with out
I applied this, rev 2722
david jencks
On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Ooops... forgot about updating parent elements. New patch attached
will actually build ;-)
--jason
openejb-scm2-v2.diff
On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Needed to change the artifactId
On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Can anyone shed some light onto why this might have happened?
Something changed in my workspace last night... but not sure what,
as this only recently started to fail consistently w/Corba J2EE
Client.
to top post ...
None of the builder
Build-related logging in m2 is whack right now... will look into
fixing that soon.
--jason
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:22 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Can anyone shed some light onto why this might have happened?
Something changed in my workspace
On Jul 4, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Gianny Damour wrote:
Gianny Damour wrote:
Hi,
I had a look to the patch and I think that it will take me about
one night to review it. As I will be on holidays this Friday, only
2 nights left, and away from any computer for 3 weeks, I am happy
to vote now
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2153?page=comments#action_12419191
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2153:
I apologize for taking so long to get to reviewing this.
This has some good elements but also quite a few problems. Here
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other
committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page:
Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role,
yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development
model
Alan,
What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
Geronimo?
Regards,
John
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
always concerned about its
On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:54 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other
committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page:
Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo
role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May
David,
I will ensure this gets followed up by Ken. CCing the PMC.
Regards,
John
David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:54 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other
committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I think the Maven 2 work is a significant project. It appears to me
that RTC has worked really well in increasing e-mail traffic on the
list exponentially but I too would agree that it has not been totally
productive. Here is my assessment:
1. Everyone agrees that this
Jason,
INAL, but sections 10 B-E in their open source contract don't sound
appropriate for ASF use to me.
http://www.perforce.com/perforce/contracts/open_source.pdf
We wouldn't want the situation where we have to uninstall it or Apache
and the development community has to start paying for
Ooops. Sorry Jason. I was trying to keep up with the emails on my
vacation and ended up misreading your question. You do clearly ask why
the d-m-p not be used to install car files.
The geronimo-assembly-plugin (g-a-p) deploys a car artifact. I
believe that this is a lot more than just
Hi Anita,
Sorry, couldn't get back to your earlier. I was checking my mail while
on a vacation but didn't have access to my code.
Anyways, I built all the applications successfully today. To figure
out why you are seeing that build break, could you please turn on the
verbose config option of
Hi all, I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as many of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am a big fan of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container for Geronimo, things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users. For example, a
75 matches
Mail list logo
