Hi,
I figured out how to get the maven reactor to use the maven eclipse
target so that it generates the eclipse project files that I need to
work with Geronimo. So if no one minds I'm going to commit a quick
change that will allow you to just run 'maven eclipse' at the root of
the Geronimo
, /modules and /applications
Then how do you create a project for the 'geronimo' (root) folder to access
other files / folders ?
Thanks,
Cameron
-Original Message-
From: Hiram Chirino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 12 July 2004 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Making
Ok. will do.
David Blevins wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:05:45AM -0400, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi,
I figured out how to get the maven reactor to use the maven eclipse
target so that it generates the eclipse project files that I need to
work with Geronimo. So if no one minds I'm going
For the in vm transport that bypasses tcpip and serialization to send
messages, yes.
Regards,
Hiram
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I don't see why we would need ActivMQ in the main class loader
hierarchy. Users of ActiveMQ should access it via the standard JMS
apis which are available to any child
as the app. Otherwise, I'm sure the server would throw
class cast exceptions.
Regards,
Hiram
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
and that is not accessed via a standard JMS API? We only need the
classes if user code is expected to interact with the class.
-dain
On Oct 3, 2004, at 3:26 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote
+1 for moving to confluence. :)
David Blevins wrote:
On Oct 19, 2004, at 1:04 AM, Eric Le Goff wrote:
Whatever happened to the vote to move to Confluence back in September?
It appears to have been ignored.
Do you have any pointer to pointer to Confluence to figure out what
it is like ?
Is this
I vote for 1 tool.
To simplify all the modes of operation I would recommend we follow the
command structure that tools like cvs and svn use. So you would
like something like:
admin.jar [general options] deploy [list of valid deploy command options]
admin.jar [general options] undeploy [list of
+1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
General syntax:
deployer [--uri URI [--driver JarFile] [--user username [--password \
password]]] command arguments
--uri: a URI to contact the server. The server must be running for this
to work. If not specified, the deployer default to operating on a
Geronimo
Hi All,
All our current GBeans must provide a static getGBeanInfo() method which
acts like a factory for GBeanInfo objects. I would like to propose that
we relax this requirement of a GBean by allowing an separate factory
class to create the GBeanInfo object for the GBean. The net effect of
+1
Hiram
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On the belief we need to formally vote on making a release, should we
produce a M3 release?
+1 from me too. Did the Kernel eliminate it's dependency on JMX events?
Regards,
Hiram
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
+1
Good idea. This has been bugging me for a long time.
-dain
On Nov 20, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
One of the goals of the kernel has been to support JMX but also to
allow
Hi David,
I just pushed up a new copy of activeio that should fix the problem.
Could you pull it down and try again.
David Jencks wrote:
I'm getting test failures on the following on both linux and osX:
org.apache.geronimo.security.jaas.LoginPropertiesFileTest
Does this mean that GBeanName is going to replace more than just where
ObjectName was being used? Right now ActiveMQ does not highly use the
Geronimo Kernel at runtime like some of the other geronimo modules do,
but if it did want to move in that direction, to for example to have the
kernel
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Stealing a page from the JavaMail spec
Those words send a cold cold shiver through my soul.
why not have resource files called geronimo.builders and
geronimo.default.builders. These are resource files located in
META-INF. They declare a builders
Hi Mark,
For more native ssh client, try putty. You can get a windows installer
for it at:
http://the.earth.li/~sgtatham/putty/latest/x86/putty-0.57-installer.exe
But if you want to unix'ish environment in windows, you can use Cygwin
http://cygwin.com/ it provides a optional ssh install
On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Maintaining our own repos would also allow us to solve the SNAPSHOT
dependency problem we currently have. We could have a procedure,
that before a release (say the M4 release), we copy the geronimo repo
http
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:14 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I think we should keep as much history as possible, at least the
dependencies for all maintained branches.
I would say, we never remove a jar. A SNAPSHOT jar should just be
a simlink
On Mar 31, 2005, at 7:35 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:30 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 6:14 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I think we should keep as much history as possible, at least the
dependencies for all
It could. But the main argument to keep old numbered snapshot
jars is so that you can build an old source release of of
geronimo that might depend on a old numbered snapshot release.
How? do we ever list the snapshot number in project.xml?
I think for a release, yes.. we should take the
On Mar 31, 2005, at 8:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
for subversion-ized projects I think it makes a lot more sense to use
a svn revision number as the jar id than a date.
+1
Regards,
Hiram
david jencks
On Mar 31, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
It could. But the main argument to keep old
On Apr 1, 2005, at 4:53 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
No, but I worry about just bundling random whatever from outside the
project with our releases. It would help to use the svn revision on
the jar, but we should
+1
Regards,
Hiram
On Apr 8, 2005, at 11:34 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
It has been a very long time since we went around and cleaned up some
of the things that seemed like good ideas at the time. I would like to
propose a spring-cleaning exercise.
For example, if we look in the sandbox we moved a
I think we can all agree that the storing of a deployment unit using
object serialization is a great optimization that helps startup times.
But we are also finding out that it's causing the sever developer some
pain. Would it be possible to make the object serialization optional?
Regards,
a lot
with the jboss xmlbean implementation and writing the xdoclet xmlbeans
plugin, I think that xml is perhaps the worst choice possible, and
javadoc tags not much better.
thanks
david jencks
On May 16, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi,
From the ActiveMQ viewpoint, we would rather
Sorry if this has already been answered but with all the mail delays
...
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi David,
Yes you are right. Our current activemq broker configuration is a
bit simplistic. I wish it was as easy to support complex broker
configuration in geronimo as it is in spring
Damn email delays.
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On May 18, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I must be missing something as I still don't see why serialization
is an issue. The attribute values would be coming from XML and so
would be simple types from the VM.
Right. The problem
the kind of runtime construction
support that is given to gbeans? If this was done, then you don't
force complex attributes to implement the Serializable interfaces.
This could go a long way in helping solve some of the serialization
issues that are being discussed in other threads.
Regards,
Hiram
in other threads.
Regards,
Hiram Chirino
So is this just to be compatible with EMS or is there another handy
reason that being able to embedd a map message is needed?
On 6/15/06, jhakim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One could allow Map or MapMessage or both as the second argument. The real
issue is that nested MapMessage should be
version number to rule all modules all that
easy either.
Also, it would be nice that if a module hadn't changed then it stays
static and is a good indicator of where the activity is.
Thoughts?
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 6/11/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
X.Y.z: patch release
+1
On 6/15/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think so.
There are lots of TLPs that do not have multiple subprojects like
geronimo or ws have (log4j, xmlbeans, ant ..).
So, i' m +1 for ActiveMQ to graduate as a TLP.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Hiram Chirino
On 6/15/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* creating a new activeio listener from the JMS server portlet fails
with NoSuchMethodError because (I think) the version of activeio that
ActiveMQ was compiled against (2.2-SNAPSHOT) differs from the version
in Geronimo (2.0-r118). There's
On 6/15/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
svn mv branches/1.1.0 tags/1.1.0
svn mv tags/1.1.0 branches/1.1.0 ## oops, found a bug
svn ci branches/1.1.0 ## fix something
svn mv branches/1.1.0 tags/1.1.0 ## retag
I prefer the above since the 1.1.0 branch is intended to be a dead
On 6/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Then you both missed the beginning of this thread where Aaron was
saying i want to update branches/1.1 with a fix for 1.1.1, where did
it go? The issue is, we haven't released 1.1 yet and no one should
be updating
On 6/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure
the code can handle a *list* of repositories.
+1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default
asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving
On 6/16/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is what I got from the thread and think makes a lot of sense.
Working copies of versions in branches would be branches/n.n. This would be
the effective trunk for
any version work.
When the team has decided that work is done and the
On 6/16/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/16/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default
asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving back 404's.
That way in the future *IF* we do decide to put up
HI,
On 6/14/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Is this a vote for the patch or whas that a +1 on my last comment?
Anyways.. I want to recap where the vote on this RTC is at. After 12
days, we have:
+1 from me, but I'm not sure it should get counted since I didn't
apply the
on the code.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/17/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 to your comment, +1 to the patch. Let's get it in! :)
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/17/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HI,
On 6/14/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RTC means tested quality, not assumed quality. If you
can't find people to test the quality of something, it
doesn't go in because the quality isn't assured.
I'm not sure where 'quality' requirement is coming from. I don't
think
Hi folks,
Looking for 3 +1s for the patch attached to
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2135.
This patch addresses previous concerns raised by David Jencks.
Items not addressed by the patch are:
#4: yes. I agree, but since these GBeans are just meant to be a simple
integration
recommendations as to how to move forward rather
than the current
dialogue which doesn't seem to be improving collaboration and communication but
is actually driving
polarization (which I think we're trying to avoid).
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RTC
On 6/19/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Clearly the opinion of some on the thread is they trust each other
and communication has already been fine so this is just slowing
them down? Is that the summary? I'd have to disagree that
On 6/19/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony,
The 1.1 branch is close and not accepting updates. It is currently located at
branches/1.1.0 and
will me moved to tags/1.1.0 when the final approval vote goes through.
branches/1.1.1 is ready for updates but we haven't agreed on the
Hi Folks,
After the customary 72 hour voting period, the 4.0.1 release was
approved with the following +1's:
+1 Hiram Chirino
+1 Alan D. Cabrera
+1 Adrian Co
+1 Brian McCallister
+1 Jonas Lim
+1 Fritz Oconer
+1 James Strachan
+1 Robert Davies
The release will become official once the incubator
I noticed that my mail filters put this in my geronimo-jira folder..
I'm hoping that's why no one replied to the RTC. Going to change the
subject like a little in hopes that it gets filtered correctly and get
folks to +1 it.
On 6/19/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Looking
+1
On 6/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is the current status of voting.
I know we've had several issues we had to work through wrt to licenses and
other issues that have
caused some respins. At this point I think we're green for the release.
Please take a few minutes
to
On 6/21/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would a branch get moved to a tag? Why do we need branches
for revisions? Why are we deleting branches?
IMO, we should have a branch for each Major.Minor, where all of the
Major.Minor.Revision work happens. So branches/1.1 would hold the
Hi Jason,
The problem is that it can take weeks to do a geronimo release since
stuff like CTS testing is involved. So the release work (putting the
finishing touches) needs to be done in a branch so that work can
continue on the next release.
Perhaps m2 has a way of dealing with those issues
+1
On 6/21/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
I think that we should mention that patches that go into
x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
x.y also go into trunk
Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board when
fixes were checked into one branch. This is one
don't think there is any harm in doing the release from the
branch if the branch is copied to the tag since the source code should
be identical between them. I think we should perhaps avoid creating
the the tag until we KNOW that the binary is approved.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/21/06, Hiram Chirino
On 6/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks David, I tried to recap in the other thread and didn't receive any
additional responses so
now that we have a branches/1.1.0 branches/1.1 and a branches/1.1.1 I don't
think we quite nailed
it. Your summary is great and I concur.
Here
Hi David..That's still work that I've got on my plate to do. The # of gbeans have changed for activemq 4. So before we switch to amq 4 and the new gbean modules, I'll have to update lots of plans. Including the ones in the CTS I imagine.
Regards,HiramOn 6/30/06, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whoa!I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear
Hi Jacek,On 7/2/06, Jacek Laskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption.I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s...And not even 1 PMC member
looked at it.And that took over a week
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Hiram Chirino
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:58 PM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re:
Hi Nathan,
I'm not so sure about that. I think that AMQ should support
receiving a STOMP frame terminated by \0 without a subsequent
\n
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:26 AM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re:
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
is the original e-mail.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]It is my understanding that the an RTC request needs 3 other committers to +1 it and does notrequire the other +1's to be PMC members.
Hiram Chirino wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation
HI Stephs,
We do a have some initial work do optimizing selectors for when many
selectors are being used against the same destination. All the selector
evaluation logic is in the org.apache.activemq.filter package.
We did some initial experiments with a MultiExpressionEvaluator which
allowed
Sounds fine to me.
On 7/7/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We had a bunch of test cases in the assembly module that were not
being executed in the m2 build for some reason; its also for legacy
reasons they were there, they are better suited to being closer to the
actual code they
Matt Did you get any feedback on this?On 7/5/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the point of confusion about the binding votes and PMC membership.It was pointed out that we have a disparity in PMC / committer populations.I think it would bebeneficial to the project to adjust
Ok. look like there was not too much opposition to backporting this so..
I'll go ahead and do it later today.
On 7/11/06, Rob Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 - sounds good to me
On 11 Jul 2006, at 16:42, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Folks.
In 4.1 we added a patch that add support
Yep it looks smelly. I guess it would be best if we created a test case for
it showing the problem.
On 7/21/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in http://rafb.net/paste/results/h7qOVA70.html there's
// we may be removing the duplicate connection, not the
first connection
Hi,
How would you guys feel if we follow servicemix's lead and switch to using
the org.apache.activemq group id and and incubator-4.1-SNAPSHOT as the
version number in our maven poms? It something that we will eventually need
to do any ways, so, I say we might as well do it now.
--
Regards,
it to the
version part we can take it out of the groupId and also the assembly module
artifactId.
--jason
On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi,
How would you guys feel if we follow servicemix's lead and switch
to using
the org.apache.activemq group id and and incubator-4.1-SNAPSHOT
On 7/25/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've quite a few bug fixes ready to roll in 4.0.2 that its probably
about time we did a release pretty soon.
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
+1
Also we've now
Hi,
I just recently put up a ActiveMQ 4.0.2 release candidate for vote so while
it's fresh on my mind I'd like to see if anybody minds if I make a small
tweak to the way we label our snapshot versions. I'd like to either change
it to 4.0-SNAPSHOT or even 4.0.x-SNAPSHOT.
The driver behind this
] wrote:
Sounds cool with me. I guess once we get to 4.1 we can use the maven 2
release plugin to make this kinda stuff easier
On 7/26/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I just recently put up a ActiveMQ 4.0.2 release candidate for vote so
while
it's fresh on my mind I'd like
information needs to be placed there.
--kevan
On Jul 26, 2006, at 1:26 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Since it was brought up, and folks concurred that it's about time
to put out
a bug fix release for ActiveMQ, I've put together a binary release of
ActiveMQ 4.0.2:
http://people.apache.org/~chirino
We soon need to make a large set of source file header changes do to recent
policy changes.. see:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html.
Hopefully I'll get some time in the next few days and I'll tackle this.
Please let me know if you got some big changes pending commit and want me to
making this change for 4.0.2?
-Brian
On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:24 AM, James Strachan wrote:
Looks good to me. Thanks for sorting this out Hiram.
On 7/27/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey.. I opened issue
http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-848 to
track.
Folks please check
/release/conf/META-INF/spring.handlers
This allow spring 2.0 to work with xbean-2.5.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 8/1/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
re-cuting should be quick to do since only the assembly module was
affected.
On 8/1/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8
Great job!
BTW: you should be able to use amq:connectionFactory and amq:queue to
make your example even more consise.
On 8/1/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a little example using 4.1-SNAPSHOT where we use a regular
Spring 2.0 XML file but embed the declaration of the
Certificate
instance? Is this susceptible to spoofing?
I didn't like this approach at first but now it seems the quickiest (and the
dirtiest) solution. Actually, it is developing a new protocol on exisitng
facilities.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
NGC
Hiram Chirino wrote:
I guess I don't understand what
/3/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sepand,
Do what you need to to get you project done, you cand send us tidbit
as you get it done and we can work on merging it back to the main
branch. The great thing is that you have a use case that we want to
support, so if you put something
+1 great job dain. This is a great move toward making geronimo
components more decoupled and more re-usable.
On 7/31/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
history length=too long
About a week ago there was a discussion on the OpenEJB mailing list
regarding the TransactionContextManager.
the cms docs again when
generating the actimemq ones???
Nate
On 8/3/06, Mittler, Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good idea ... I'll take care of that this evening.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Hiram Chirino
Sent: Thursday, August
Hi Komandur,
As long as your META-INF directory is in the classpath it should get
picked up. Please note that we do this with the activemq-optional
jar. It contains a bunch of FactoryFinder services that activemq can
successfully look up.
On 8/3/06, Komandur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have
I would think it's the activemq-ra.jar but I'll have to double check.
On 8/3/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking at the examples in the Jencks project, I see the use of the
following namespace:
xmlns:amqra=http://activemq.org/ra/1.0;
but I can't seem to find which
it
discussed somewhere
Yep...good point...I needed to do that. I have been *really* busy
lately, so it slipped by...sorry about that.
I will update it now.
Jeff
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 5, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I gave you one...
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Everybody,
I'm
This might be better asked on a maven user list.
But I usually use Eclipse to run an individual unit test. To skip
them all I use -Dmaven.test.skip=true
On 8/7/06, Sepand M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but finding solutions to maven
problems always takes way
I'm not convinced that this is needed. As I commented on the previous
thread, the only reason that this is a problem is that a single thread
is creating multiple consumers. If you use a single consumer, per
thread this would not be an issue.
Regards,
Hiram
On 8/8/06, Pesochinskiy, Vadim
Some NOTICE file issues were found in the 2nd release candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut and RC 3 of the 4.0.2 build with the fixes
and it's available here:
http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0.2-RC3/maven1/incubator-activemq/distributions/
Maven 1 and Maven 2 repos
I think that if we enable async dispatch this issue should go away.
This would only affect vm transport since the transport oneways. We
should look into making async to be dispatch be the default when using
the vm transport.
On 8/11/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sometime have
Please submit that patch!
On 8/10/06, Fateev, Maxim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We were looking at alternate message persistence mechanisms that can
co-exist in current ActiveMQ code base and we are thinking of a mechanism that
is somewhat incompatible with the current
think we should fix it.
On 8/11/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, the docs on http://www.activemq.org/site/consumer-dispatch-async.html
refer to dispatchAsync but the code uses asyncDispatch.
I guess this is an oversight, right ?
On 8/11/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
I just applied the simple fix of enabling the setter in in the 4.0
branch. If anybody feels strongly that we need to fix the naming
inconsistencies in that branch too open a jira an we'll consider it.
On 8/11/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep it's been fixed in 4.1
to build a
classpath.
Hiram Chirino wrote:
just run mvn install
that should produce binaries in the target directory and even install
them into your local maven repo.
On 8/14/06, bmadigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to build a local binary from a source snapshot so we can
Congrats!
On 8/16/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Please join us in welcoming Guillaume who recently accepted an invitation to
join the Geronimo PMC.
Guillaume is probably best known for his work on Xbean and ServiceMix. Has
always been available
to help out folks and is a
Congrats!
On 8/14/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache Geronimo PMC would like to let everyone know that Alan Cabrera has
accepted the
invitation to join the Geronimo PMC. We are excited to have Alan assisting
with project oversight
in addition to his technical contributions
Yep. I'll run the tally.
On 8/17/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it's time to ask the incubator PMC to vote on this release ?
On 8/8/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some NOTICE file issues were found in the 2nd release candidate of the
4.0.2 build. I have cut
Hi folks,
Thanks for taking the time to check the release. Vote passes with 8
+1's . We just need to get the incubator PMC to now approve the
release.
+1 Votes:
Hiram Chirino
James Strachan
Rob Davies
Guillaume Nodet
Kevan Miller
Alan D. Cabrera
Aaron Mulder
Brian McCallister
No +/- 0 or -1
Hi Tim,
Wild, I just ran it and it was ok.
Try setting you MAVEN_OPTS shell variable to something like -Xmx800M
Regards,
Hiram
On 8/17/06, Timothy Bish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey guys
I'm trying to understand the openwire command generator. My first task is
just getting it to run and
There is a replacement. But folks tend to not change that policy.
It would be simpler to just disable that feature. I would rather
spend time trying to expose the network of broker configuration.
On 8/18/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a replacement for DeadLetterPolicy in
java.io.File;
+import java.io.FileWriter;
+import java.io.IOException;
+import java.io.PrintWriter;
+import java.util.ArrayList;
+import java.util.Collection;
+import java.util.HashMap;
+import java.util.Iterator;
+import java.util.Map;
+import java.util.Map.Entry;
+
+/**
+ * @author Hiram Chirino
Add me to get the activemq 4.x integration completed.
On 8/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Aaron started a thread back a ways about the 1.2 release. I know that there
has been discussion,
interest and some action in getting it on the table. At this point I'm not
exactly
Yep. I plan won working on it a bit this week and next.
On 8/18/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm gonna need some help from the ActiveMQ folks... I did a quick try
to enable the modules that Hiram added a while ago, and switch out
the versions and well it barfed all over the place.
I'll start at thread on infrastructure to discuss how best to get the
JIRA migration done.
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/13/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure
The Invocation type, that I am describing, is not bound to a specific
protocol (note that I mention both web and tiers above) - but an
abstraction over calls/rpcs/etc.. carried via a number of possible
transports : Http, OpenEJB, IIOP, various WS transports...
Sounds interesting but a bit
Hi Mats!
On 3/16/06, Mats Forslöf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We need some additional information on the OpenWire protocol to wrap up our
work on the C++ AMQ client.
1. To use loose encoding what do we have to do, is it simply to set the tight
encoding attribute to false on the
1 - 100 of 959 matches
Mail list logo
