Re: [VOTE] Apache XBean 4.22 release

+1 -David > On Oct 10, 2022, at 2:23 AM, fpapon wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I submit Apache XBean 4.22 release to your vote. > > This release includes: > - ASM 9.4 update > > Release Notes: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310312=12352368 > >

Re: Moving Mail, Activation, Transaction and Connector to Apache TomEE (was Re: [DISCUSS] Move microprofile impl to Apache TomEE)

avid >> On Jun 14, 2022, at 9:36 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> wrote: >> >> No blocker from me (minor note being some are already on git so don't start >> back from svn ;)) >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |

Re: [VOTE] Release Mail 2.0.0-M1

orget jira and site updates, we missed it by the past and hurts way > later when we need to catch up. > > Le lun. 23 mai 2022 à 18:15, David Blevins a écrit : > Vote passes with 6 +1s (4 binding) > > As noted in the other vote I didn't propose a final as we haven't yet run

Moving Mail, Activation, Transaction and Connector to Apache TomEE (was Re: [DISCUSS] Move microprofile impl to Apache TomEE)

Jumping off of this thread, is there any openness to discussing moving this code over to TomEE? - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager/trunk/ - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-activation_2.0_spec/ -

Re: [DISCUSS] Move microprofile impl to Apache TomEE

> On Jun 14, 2022, at 2:44 AM, Thomas Andraschko > wrote: > > yep, we probably dont have enough commiters to maintain it > but instead of freezing, shouldnt we maybe think about how to make it more > attractive and easier to get more contributors? > we have sooo many contributors in PrimeFaces

Re: Dealing with compliance disagreements (was Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0)

> On May 24, 2022, at 6:14 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > You could have flags that enabled non-compliant behavior, but they would have > to be off by default and require user action to turn them on. To be clear I could have used a better word than "flags." You can ha

Dealing with compliance disagreements (was Re: [VOTE] Geronimo activation_2.0_spec 1.0.0)

Just wanted to echo what Jean-Louis said and add some details. During the 20 years of these specs living in the JCP, the license requirements stated that you must agree to ship your implementation with all defaults set to the compliant state. You could have flags that enabled non-compliant

Re: [VOTE] Release Mail 2.0.0-M1

and there are no additions/changes, etc. These are separate from the com.sun.ts.tests.javamail tests. In the past we would always ensure these tests before releasing. -David > On May 14, 2022, at 2:27 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > Hey All, > > If I was thinking ahead I'd have

Re: [VOTE] Release Mail 2.0.0-M1

+1 (binding) -David > On May 14, 2022, at 2:27 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > Hey All, > > If I was thinking ahead I'd have put these both in the same staging repo and > vote :) > > Staging Maven repository: > > - https://repository.apache.org/content/repos

[RESULT] Release Activation 2.0.0-M1

PM, David Blevins wrote: > > Hey All, > > We're thinking to do a release on the TomEE side and this is one of the > snapshot dependencies we have. I've prepped a 2.0.0-M1 with the idea that > being a milestone it should be fairly non-controversial to propose without a >

Re: [VOTE] Release Activation 2.0.0-M1

My +1 -David > On May 14, 2022, at 2:00 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > Hey All, > > We're thinking to do a release on the TomEE side and this is one of the > snapshot dependencies we have. I've prepped a 2.0.0-M1 with the idea that > being a milestone it should be fai

[VOTE] Release Mail 2.0.0-M1

Hey All, If I was thinking ahead I'd have put these both in the same staging repo and vote :) Staging Maven repository: - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1153/ The only change is conversion from javax to the jakarta namespace via contributor Richard

[VOTE] Release Activation 2.0.0-M1

Hey All, We're thinking to do a release on the TomEE side and this is one of the snapshot dependencies we have. I've prepped a 2.0.0-M1 with the idea that being a milestone it should be fairly non-controversial to propose without a heads up and I haven't checked the TCK status. I know we're

Re: TomEE MicroProfile and Jakarta

This is very close. The dangers of A are not quite captured. Completely agree with the dangers of B. > On Apr 1, 2022, at 1:13 AM, Zowalla, Richard > wrote: > > So we basically have to options (if I understand the discussion > correctly): > > (A) Put some effort / resources into upgrade

Re: TomEE MicroProfile and Jakarta

It would be great to see us have compliant MicroProfile implementations somewhere in Apache; Geronimo, TomEE, CXF. It's still my personal preference -- It makes very little sense to go through the effort to create a spec and tck to enable multiple implementations that can compete/innovate and

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > No I guess it was right, "that are" ;) = fork @G only when we need to > change some impl/default provider. Right. A few things in my mind at least: - Industry health: we (Apache) are the only other implementations of Activation,

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 6:04 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > No, this is an intended situation. > When one fully passes the TCK then you get the EFSL. This 'removes' the > copyleft nature of the EPL. > The details are quite nested in the legal papers, but that's it basically. > > If we just upgrade

Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and there is no > impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it sounds natural This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use the EPL

Re: Java EE 8 versions of APIs

asap, but not hold up the TomEE 8.0.0 final release. IMHO, we should try to be vote-ready on Friday. If we can get it done in that time, cool. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Sep 3, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro > wrote: > > Tr

Re: Activation 1.2 API/IMPL

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 6:47 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro > wrote: > > Hi, > > We currently don't have any Activation 1.2 spec jar (api/impl). > We need it for Jakarta EE 8 certification so I'll start creating a Geronimo > spec jar for it. Ok, it's been a yo-yo day on the Jakarta EE 8 side of the

Re: [VOTE] Apache XBean 4.11 release

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Hello everyone, > Here is the vote to let us get asm7 shade and a fix in the multiversion jar > scanning. > > The dist (dev) area is

Re: asm7 preparation

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Otoh I'm totally fine either ways. For clarity, though I made the suggestion, I'm fine either way as well. There might be a few 4.10.x in our future, but it wouldn't be terrible. I definitely see how a 5x change has the opportunity to

Re: xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

es, let's tackle this asm7 thing and we can even add other features ;) > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > > > Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:01, David Blevins a écrit : > Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile. I did an svn

Re: asm7 preparation

> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main point is: > do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime it will work? > If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have some of

Re: asm7 preparation

> On Sep 30, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > 3. keep it like that > 4. use an "asm.*" package crossing fingers > > I'd love 4 but I fear it can create issue quickly when I see what java is > becoming so, personally, i think 3 is safe but since we are at "that" moment > I'd

Re: xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile. I did an svn log and swore I didn't see the commit in there. It's definitely there. I think my mind has been warped by working with Git too long. Sorry for the noise and thank for the release, sir! -- David Blevins http://twitter.com

Re: xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

> On Aug 8, 2018, at 6:53 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > I'd love to do a 4.x release of this code. Hey Romain, is there any reason you pulled this code out of the XBean 4.10 release? Ideally we discuss these things as a community before tacking action. Would you mind if I d

Re: [VOTE] Release XBean 4.10

Never mind. I missed the result vote which was a separate thread. I'll put a 4.11 up. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Oct 1, 2018, at 11:37 AM, David Blevins wrote: > > Can we do a reroll with XBEAN-309 included? Sans that does anyone

Re: [VOTE] Release XBean 4.10

Can we do a reroll with XBEAN-309 included? Sans that does anyone mind if I immediately cut the XBean 4.11 now? The work has been done for 2 months and I was hoping to get this into a TomEE release soon. Hopefully TomEE 8 will be cut in the next days. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com

Re: [VOTE] Geronimo Validation 2.0 (spec) v1.0

+1 Thank you for doing this, Romain! -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Sep 30, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Hi guys, > > To enable BVal and TomEE releases, I'd like to release our validation spec >

xbean-reflect changes and potential xbean 5?

All, I updated the converter code in xbean-reflect to add support for JAX-RS style string constructors and static factory methods. We weren't so clever to think of this in 2006, but it definitely fits. Moreover, I don't think we need half of the built-in Converter/PropertyEditor

Re: [VOTE] Move ahead with creating a reusable JWT module

what TomEE is doing. > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 8:59 PM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > My vote would be -0 and I hesitate even for a negative anything. > > I think the "Geronimo will do it anyway, collaborate or not" perspective >

Re: [VOTE] Move ahead with creating a reusable JWT module

lse lines making everyone have to get commit twice and hiding our best work under a dead website and brand, we aren't getting the strength and speed we need. As long as I feel understood, not pushed into doing something I don't want to do, I'm more than happy. -David > On Mar 18, 2018, at 5

[VOTE] Move ahead with creating a reusable JWT module

Two votes are up in the TomEE community on what to do with PR #123 ( https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123 ). The first vote is if TomEE should merge it. The second vote is if TomEE should attempt to extract it. It was said 3-4 times in the discussion between both communities "geronimo

Re: MP-JWT progress

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth? I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The discussion started

Re: MP-JWT progress

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been created anywhere yet, is that right? Is there anyone on the Geronimo side

Re: MP-JWT progress

In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now. If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com&

Re: MP-JWT progress

I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this at least? -David > On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau

Re: [DRAFT] Announcement for Geronimo Config release

How about "MicroProfile component specification" ? "first implementation of a MicroProfile component specification here at Apache" -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Sep 16, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmann

Re: [DRAFT] Announcement for Geronimo Config release

> On Sep 15, 2017, at 5:43 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:36 PM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com > <mailto:david.blev...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:54 AM, John D. Ament

Re: [DRAFT] Announcement for Geronimo Config release

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:54 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > as well as being the first release of a MicroProfile specification > implementation here at Apache Note TomEE is the first MP implementation at Apache. We intentionally defined MP 1.0 as a subset of the WebProfile

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:42 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > I think i get your point of view. Ill note that i didnt participate in this > vote but my POV is that we were only voting on item 1, retire the server. > > The fact that new components are coming in is a different

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > This 'implied' 3rd block was actually never implied nor up for discussion. > Not quite sure what I did word wrong to give you that impression. > But rest ensurred that it was never intended that way! >> Paraphrasing,

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page. > On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struber

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > +1 for going forward > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the > G-Server. > To mitigate this problem I pushed

Re: Other MP Specs @ Geronimo?

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > The reason I'm hesitant to look at XBean, it seems to be focused on a single > target (which is good for a sub-project). It would start to confuse things > to make more stuff XBean. Can you elaborate on what you

Re: Other MP Specs @ Geronimo?

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 4:56 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > So I want to pick back up at least with fault tolerance. Would anyone be > opposed to starting up a repo on it? I'm thinking of the name "Safeguard" so > that it would either be "org.apache.safeguard" or >

Renaming Geronimo Config?

Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the same version as the other xbean components. We could, but I think 1.0 would still be fine. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.4 release

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.4. > > Here is the staging repo: > https:/

Re: [VOTE] release jpa 2.1 spec jar in 1.0-alpha-1

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com On Jun 15, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I'd like to call a vote to release our jpa 2.1 api jar. Here are: - the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content

Re: [VOTE] a few geronimo-spec alpha-1 artifacts (take2)

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi! Here comes the release train again after fixing the build and a few missing licenses... * geronimo-annotation_1.2_spec * geronimo

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.0

On Aug 20, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: The main changes are: [...] skip java.* classes since we'll not get their bytecode for sure (protected method if needed) I'm not a fan of hard coding filtering inside the AnnotationFinder itself, so +1 under the

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] XBean 4.0

On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: PS: ones having identified some issues would be welcomed to at least open a jira explaining it and potentially proposing a fix if you already have an idea to not forget them for 4.1 Nicely phrased. And +1 on the

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] XBean 4.0

And Thank You for the vote!! -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Counting votes it seems it passed: +1s: Alan D Cabrera, David Blevins, Romain Manni-Bucau +0: Jean-Baptiste

Re: Google Analytics

2014-05-26 23:21 GMT+02:00 David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com: Anyone still able to access this? For some reason this no longer shows up in my Google Analytics account. On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:32 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com wrote: Setup google analytics on all our

Re: Google Analytics

Anyone still able to access this? For some reason this no longer shows up in my Google Analytics account. On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:32 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@visi.comwrote: Setup google analytics on all our spaces and added everyone who's a committer who I could easily find a gmail

Re: [VOTE] XBean 3.18

+1 -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com On May 20, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm starting a vote for xbean 3.18 release. The main changes are: 1) removing asm5 from xbean-reflect 2) more consistent

Re: [VOTE] XBean 3.17

+1 On Mar 31, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm starting a vote for an xbean 3.17 release. The main change is the removing of asm3 and 4 shades and the replacement with asm5 one to be able to be compatible with java 8. Binaries:

Re: [VOTE] release geronimo-jbatch_1.0-1.0

+1 -David On Nov 25, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Good evening! I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing the geronimo jbatch 1.0 API. The API is already used in Apache BatchEE and passes the JSR-352 JBatch TCK. The staging repo is

[RESULTS] XBean 3.15 release

Ok. Here's my +1. Vote passes with 8 +1s and no other votes: David Blevins Alan Cabrera Romain Manni-Bucau Dain Sundstrom Hiram Chirino Jean-Louis Monteiro Jarek Gawor Mark Struberg -David On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:55 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, release rolled

[VOTE] XBean 3.15 release

Ok, release rolled! Binaries: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-086/ Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/tags/xbean-3.15/ 72 hours for voting! :) -David

XBean 3.15 release?

Anyone object if I roll an XBean 3.1.5 release? -David

Re: [VOTE] (take 2) Release genesis-2.1 and xbean-3.13

+1 for genesis +1 for xbean. The presence of a snapshot repository declaration is fine, IMO. I built both genesis and xbean tags against a clean maven repo and no snapshots were downloaded. -David On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Jarek Gawor jga...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for genesis. -1 for

Re: geronimo.genesis

On Jan 31, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi folks! I'm currently trying to fix a xbean compilation error on java7 platforms. Thus I stumbled over a very deep parent chain in our poms. There are 4 layers of geronimo.genesis parent poms. And the top of them

[jira] [Created] (XBEAN-233) Support for RetentionPolicy.CLASS broken for ElementType FIELD, METHOD and CONSTRUCTOR

David Blevins created XBEAN-233: --- Summary: Support for RetentionPolicy.CLASS broken for ElementType FIELD, METHOD and CONSTRUCTOR Key: XBEAN-233 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-233

Re: [VOTE] Release XBean 3.12

+1 -David

Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo 3.0.0 (3rd Try)

+1 -David On Jul 3, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Forrest Xia wrote: Hi Devs, With correction of repositoryList URL, here we have the 3rd release candidate for vote. Please help vote at your earliest convenient time. The server code up for vote is:

Re: [VOTE] XBean 3.10 (take 1)

Ok, closing vote with 5 +1s and no other votes. +1s: Forrest Xia David Blevins Kevan Miller Alan Cabrera Shawn Jiang -David On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:13 PM, David Blevins wrote: Binaries are up for consideration. Here's the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories

Re: [VOTE] XBean 3.10 (take 1)

Excellent. My +1 -David On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:13 PM, David Blevins wrote: Binaries are up for consideration. Here's the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-032/org/apache/xbean/ I assume this is what was being asked for to run

[VOTE] XBean 3.10 (take 1)

Binaries are up for consideration. Here's the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-032/org/apache/xbean/ I assume this is what was being asked for to run on the 3.0-beta branch. The tag:

Re: XBean release

. On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Shawn Jiang genspr...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see a full run of geronimo tck result before the release. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 5, 2012, at 6:53 PM, David Blevins wrote: Hoping to get

Re: XBean release

Alright, might be easier to just put the release up for vote and give people the time to do what they need. Rolling -David On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:45 PM, David Blevins wrote: It sounds like there's willingness, but I'm not sure who is doing what and when. If I put the vote up

XBean release

Hoping to get time to do an xbean release today or tomorrow. Let me know if there's any reason to wait. -David

Re: [VOTE] Release XBean 3.9

If at all possible it would be great to get a re-roll with these two: r1215562 | dblevins | 2011-12-17 11:49:40 -0800 (Sat, 17 Dec 2011) | 2 lines XBEAN-198: Support for proposed @javax.annotation.Metatype

[jira] [Created] (XBEAN-196) Meta Annotation Support for Method and Constructor Parameters

Components: finder Reporter: David Blevins Assignee: David Blevins Fix For: 3.9 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure

[jira] [Created] (XBEAN-197) Alternate annotations can serve as @Metatype

Reporter: David Blevins Assignee: David Blevins Fix For: 3.9 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa

Re: Trunk beta release

-SNAPSHOT, But I can find part of them are still 1.0-SNAPSHOT. I'm not sure what's the pratice to release javaee-api and samples when they don't share the same version with trunk. On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:58 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote: I suspect

[jira] [Updated] (GERONIMO-6122) Support Stateless and Singleton EJB as JAX-RS root resource classes, providers and Application subclasses

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] David Blevins updated GERONIMO-6122: Summary: Support Stateless and Singleton EJB as JAX-RS root resource classes, providers

Re: BVal and searchWiredBudles=false

That was perfect, btw. Thanks so much! I really love that whole bundles setup. Being able to patch a file or two is so incredibly useful. -David On Aug 24, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Rex Wang wrote: commit At revision: 1161387 Please check if that is what you want. -Rex 2011/8/25 David

BVal and searchWiredBudles=false

Checked in a potential fix for the bean validation tests that fail with the following issue: java.lang.NullPointerException at javax.xml.validation.SchemaFactory.newSchema(SchemaFactory.java:626) at

Re: svn commit: r1096951 [6/6] - in /geronimo/server/trunk: ./ framework/ framework/assemblies/ framework/assemblies/geronimo-framework/ framework/buildsupport/car-maven-plugin/src/main/filtered-resou

trunk. I guess I should investigate since I've been working with that code some more david jencks On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:50 PM, David Blevins wrote: David, Any info on why this was removed? Guessing it was just a side effect of a merge. (related jira https://issues.apache.org

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6117) OpenWebBeansPlugin load optimization

) Components: OpenEJB, OpenWebBeans Reporter: David Blevins Assignee: David Blevins Fix For: 3.0-M2 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Re: svn commit: r1160106 - /geronimo/server/trunk/plugins/openejb/geronimo-openejb/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/openejb/cdi/OpenWebBeansWebInitializer.java

On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:45 AM, dblev...@apache.org wrote: Author: dblevins Date: Mon Aug 22 04:45:07 2011 New Revision: 1160106 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1160106view=rev Log: GERONIMO-6117: OpenWebBeansPlugin load

Re: svn commit: r1096951 [6/6] - in /geronimo/server/trunk: ./ framework/ framework/assemblies/ framework/assemblies/geronimo-framework/ framework/buildsupport/car-maven-plugin/src/main/filtered-resou

David, Any info on why this was removed? Guessing it was just a side effect of a merge. (related jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5888) -David On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:19 PM, djen...@apache.org wrote: Modified:

[jira] [Created] (XBEAN-179) File path / URL decoding issue for paths with +

Reporter: David Blevins Assignee: David Blevins Specifically affects OSX which likes to create tmp directories with + sign in them -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6090) Don't scan for EE Injections in a CDI application in metadata complete web module

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13069315#comment-13069315 ] David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-6090: - CDI TCK got a little grouchy

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6090) Don't scan for EE Injections in a CDI application in metadata complete web module

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13069332#comment-13069332 ] David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-6090: - Checked in a fix, seems to do

[jira] [Resolved] (GERONIMO-6090) Don't scan for EE Injections in a CDI application in metadata complete web module

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] David Blevins resolved GERONIMO-6090. - Resolution: Fixed Don't scan for EE Injections in a CDI application in metadata

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6089) Support for CDI beans in ear lib directory

(Regular issues) Reporter: David Blevins Assignee: David Blevins Fix For: 3.0-M2 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6090) Don't scan for EE Injections in a CDI application in metadata complete web module

: Geronimo Issue Type: Bug Security Level: public (Regular issues) Components: deployment Reporter: David Blevins Assignee: David Blevins Fix For: 3.0-M2 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA

Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Transaction Manager version 2.2.2

+1 On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: Hi, Note: This is my first release ever so provide guidance where needed. The release of Geronimo Transaction Manager version 2.2.2 is to ship OpenEJB 3.2.0 as it currently depends on 2.2-SNAPSHOT. The fixes in this release are:

Re: [VOTE] Release new bundle components.

+1 On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote: This is a single vote for releasing 6 new Geronimo bundles that are OSGi versions of other jar files. The wrappered jars are woodstox-core-asl 4.1.1_1 jaxb-impl 2.2.3-1_1 scout 1.2.3_1 saaj-impl 1.3.8_1 axis 1.4_2

Re: less-osgi-friendly code drop

On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:10 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:46 PM, David Blevins wrote: On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:54 AM, David Jencks wrote: testSpecializedBeanNotInstantiated(org.jboss.jsr299

[jira] [Commented] (GERONIMO-6038) testNonContextualSessionBeanReferenceIsIntercepted(org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.interceptors.definition.enterprise.nonContextualReference.SessionBeanInterceptorOnNonCo

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6038?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13065672#comment-13065672 ] David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-6038: - public class Cruiser implements Ship

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on geronimo-server-trunk

Likely the snapshots are out of date. Poking buildbot to publish new ones now -David On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Rex Wang wrote: Not me.. anyone see this? java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/openejb/jee/Application at

Re: less-osgi-friendly code drop

On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:54 AM, David Jencks wrote: testSpecializedBeanNotInstantiated(org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.inheritance.specialization.enterprise.EnterpriseBeanSpecializationIntegrationTest)

[jira] [Resolved] (GERONIMO-6032) testRequestScopeDestroyedAfterCallToEjbTimeoutMethod(org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.context.request.ejb.EJBRequestContextTest)

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6032?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] David Blevins resolved GERONIMO-6032. - Resolution: Fixed testRequestScopeDestroyedAfterCallToEjbTimeoutMethod

[jira] [Resolved] (GERONIMO-6033) testSettingInjectionTargetReplacesIt(org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.extensions.producer.ProducerTest)

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6033?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] David Blevins resolved GERONIMO-6033. - Resolution: Won't Fix This will go away with the merge of David Jencks' OSGi friendly

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6062) XBean 3.8-SNAPSHOT

XBean 3.8-SNAPSHOT -- Key: GERONIMO-6062 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6062 Project: Geronimo Issue Type: Sub-task Security Level: public (Regular issues) Reporter: David Blevins

[jira] [Created] (GERONIMO-6061) Geronimo 3.0 trunk SNAPSHOT dependencies

issues) Reporter: David Blevins Fix For: 3.0-M2 -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >