Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Jeff said that he was going to look at moving these system properties to
the j2ee-corba plan.
I did? ;-) Thats news to me! I'll see if I can get some time to do it...
Jeff
ROFL...*that* is hilarious!
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 4/9/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fixed this by just listing the two default servelts by name. I
believe this is much less error prone.
-cain
Dude, if you're looking for the app server where all the majorly evil
people
Yep...need to update the plan. Its updated in trunk.
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
It appears that G1.1 is still using Tomcat 5.5.9
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1/etc/project.properties
Wasn't a tomcat upgrade to 5.5.15 in plan for G1.1?? Perhaps I am
confused with
to be cut on friday and voted stable eventually 1-2
weeks later.
Jeff Genender wrote:
Yep...need to update the plan. Its updated in trunk.
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
It appears that G1.1 is still using Tomcat 5.5.9
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1/etc/project.properties
Hi Chris,
Did Dojo fix the ie https bug? I recently ran into a problem with Dojo
where when its run on https and ie, you get an annoying This page
contains secure and nonsecure items, Do you with to continue pop up.
There were several reasons for it, but it was enough for me to scrap
using Dojo.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 4/11/06, Vamsavardhana Reddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accessed the following link to download G1.0
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/geronimo/1.0/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.0.zip
The page lists
Sure...no problem.
Jeff
Kevan Miller wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I'd prefer to make some progress 1.1 testing-wise before throwing a new
version of Tomcat into the mix. Once things are relatively stable, with
the current 1.1 codebase, then we could move up the Tomcat version.
Otherwise, I'm afraid
Done.
Kevan Miller wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I'd prefer to make some progress 1.1 testing-wise before throwing a new
version of Tomcat into the mix. Once things are relatively stable, with
the current 1.1 codebase, then we could move up the Tomcat version.
Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to be
to 5.5.15, we will likely need a new plan
that accounts for both the webcontainer upgrade as well as the new G1.1
plan format..
Thanks
-Dave-
Jeff Genender wrote:
Thanks Rainer. But I think 5.5.15 will be the one for 1.1. But
possibly 5.5.17 for 1.2 ;-)
Jeff
Rainer Jung wrote:
Just
topic thread or mail me
directly.
Rainer
Jeff Genender wrote:
Yep...each core will handle 4 hardware threads. It was built for
multiple threads and a JVM (multithreaded of course) is made for this
box. For an appserver under load, I think the numbers should be
impressive on this box
Jeff Genender wrote:
Yep...each core will handle 4 hardware threads. It was built for
multiple threads and a JVM (multithreaded of course) is made for this
box. For an appserver under load, I think the numbers should be
impressive on this box.
The cool thing about this machine is, each core
(attached to email) required some changes.
I'm now rebuilding G1.1 with Tomcat 5.5.15 to determine if the
clustering Gbeans and plans still work..
-Dave-
Jeff Genender wrote:
IIRC, 5.5.15 went to backward compatibility...
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-users/200512.mbox
Jeff Genender wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for doing this.
Jeff
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
I've validated that the Geronimo clustering example
(http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/GERONIMO/Geronimo+Clustering+Example)
still works for Geronimo 1.1 (with Tomcat 5.5.9
It seems that G1.1 build is broken as there is a dependency that was
pushed that was built with Java 1.5...any ideas?:
+
| geronimo and geronimo-plugins Geronimo :: J2EE Schema
| Memory: 15M/30M
+
DEPRECATED: the
]
java.lang.IllegalStateException: getId: Session already invalidated
[snip]
This one may not be new..
Thanks
-Dave-
Jeff Genender wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for doing this.
Jeff
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
I've validated that the Geronimo clustering example
(http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss
No problem...I can add em...
but I need to get a reasonable build first.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jeff,
I have some additional Tomcat connectotr attributes I'd like for
tweaking for 1.1. Can you add these or do you have an objection if
they're added?
enableLookups
maxKeepAliveRequests
The last Java 5 update from Apple breaks the Geronimo 1.1 build for Mac
OS X users.
Symptoms (when tests are on) include getting the following error:
Unable to obtain goal [multiproject:install-callback] --
/Users/powerbook/.maven/cache/maven-test-plugin-1.7/plugin.jelly:134:-1:
junit
Yes...and before anyone asks...
The JVM/JAVA_HOME/PATh was set to the 1.4 JVM. The OS seems to get
mixed up about the path libs.
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
The last Java 5 update from Apple breaks the Geronimo 1.1 build for Mac
OS X users.
Symptoms (when tests are on) include getting
Yes, you should be able to do this. Look at the geronimo-web.xml for
the Tomcat descriptor. There is a xml tag that lets you reference a
valve in the geronimo-web.xml.
Krishnakumar B wrote:
Hi,
I have a ? related to SSO in tomcat.
I can build geronimo configuring a SSO Valve and use this
Snyder wrote:
On 4/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes...and before anyone asks...
The JVM/JAVA_HOME/PATh was set to the 1.4 JVM. The OS seems to get
mixed up about the path libs.
You beat me to it ;-).
Is there any way that we can massage the CLASSPATH as a temporary
[X] +1 - Close development for 1.1 on Monday 4/24 0600 PT
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
I'd like to propose we close 1.1 and start putting the wrapping tape on
the box. There have been new features / functions coming in and at some
point we need to collectively get this one out the door and
Look under the security module.
argyn wrote:
i started looking into code in org.apache.geronimo.security.jacc
http://geronimo.apache.org/api/org/apache/geronimo/security/jacc/package-summary.html
package. basically, i want to figure out how to plug the custom JACC
provider into Geronimo, so i
m2 is not ready yet. Do a:
maven m:co
then a
maven new
argyn wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Apr 22, 2006, at 3:49 PM, argyn wrote:
I thought someone (david jencks?) mentioned 1.2 branch. is it trunc?
if it's not stable, then do you have a less unstable tag there for
me to download?
Yeah, I can take a look.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
All,
While working on the plugins I found that our Directory is out of date
(0.9.2 vs latest 0.9.3 on iBiblio). I also found that if we just
take the latest of everything Directory-related it blows up (in
particular, mina 0.9.0 doesn't work,
I'll double that...welcome aboard Rick!
Kevan Miller wrote:
Congratulations Rick!
--kevan
On Apr 21, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
In recognition of his contributions and participation in the Apache
Geronimo community, the Geronimo PMC is proud to announce the
committership of
Will there be an impact on existing users who have their
web/applications using configId? If so will/can we accept both? I
would hate to break backwards compatibility on this.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I think we can do it in a night. All we need is a sed script -- the
syntax isn't
have time for the latest RC2 release of Directory? We could
push this release for G to get a bunch of fixes and performance
enhancements in there.
Alex
Jeff Genender wrote:
Yeah, I can take a look.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
All,
While working on the plugins I found that our Directory
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 4/23/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will there be an impact on existing users who have their
web/applications using configId? If so will/can we accept both? I
would hate to break backwards compatibility on this.
Well, we've changed the syntax
I would need to agree with Alan and Matt on this...
-1 for 1.1
+1 for 1.2
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm for the change but as I ponder the ramifications to 1.1 I'm afraid
the scope of this modification is too large. The TCK needs to be
updated, lots of hard references,
Alex,
Can you get the jars in ibiblio and I can get the integration going? I
am only seeing 0.9.2 in ibiblio at the moment.
Thanks,
Jeff
Alex Karasulu wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
If the changes are not huge, I can probably do it. Alex, are the
updates significant?
Since 0.9.2 I'd say
PROTECTED]:
Jeff Genender wrote:
If the changes are not huge, I can probably do it. Alex, are the
updates significant?
Since 0.9.2 I'd say RC1 is a significant update. There are package name
changes to comply with Directory's TLP domain name which are perhaps the
most significant changes
This goes beyond Spring (and Commons Logging). It affects antlr too
when using Hibernate. I am sure there are a plethora of other
jar/packages this will affect too.
Should we take a closer look at our classloaders and figure out why we
need to do this?
Jeff
Aaron Mulder (JIRA) wrote:
Add
, Antlr?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 4/24/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This goes beyond Spring (and Commons Logging). It affects antlr too
when using Hibernate. I am sure there are a plethora of other
jar/packages this will affect too.
Should we take a closer look at our
+1...great idea.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Dain and I had talked about this on Friday. I think the direction needs
to be to NOT have user artifacts in the Geronimo repo its just the way
it is right now. I think the idea of making a groupId of user-apps is
fine. Perhaps something like
I have to agree with John here, as this comes as a big surprise. Did I
miss a discussion on this? The domain currently shows:
Administrative Contact:
Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
None
706 Larkspur Lane
Warrington, Pennsylvania 18976
United States
(000)
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 5/1/06, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
default value for the URL in the Import/Export Configurations page.
This was introduced in
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605view=rev .
I
anything offensive by this. My sincere apologies to the
Mulders.
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
I have to agree with John here, as this comes as a big surprise. Did I
miss a discussion on this? The domain currently shows:
Administrative Contact:
Mulder,
None
I'll be there.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Thought I'd start a thread to see which of the committers will be a Java
One. I seem to remember seeing a note about getting together to discuss
where we're at and where we're going but I don't remember seeing a
whose who in the zoo list. If your going
I am now satisfied with Aarons approach as well - my -1 is now a +0. My
issues were more with discussing this before implementing (yes CTR may
apply, but this clearly has the potential for enough strife that solid
discussion should be appropriate on this topic).
Thanks for the lengthy emails as
Anyone know of any Geronimo BOFs at JavaOne this year? If not, any
interest on getting one together?
I haven't seen or heard of any from our community here. I think it
would be great to get everyone together and do some form of BOF to
update everyone of where we are at and where we are going.
Yes...I have some connections I can try to ping...
Great idea for a topic though!
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I think that would be great. I've love to spend some time there doing
an introduction to plugins. But don't we need Sun to bless any BOF
for JavaOne?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/3/06, Jeff
Yay! Thanks Geir!!
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Anyone know of any Geronimo BOFs at JavaOne this year? If not, any
interest on getting one together?
Yes - I asked for a slot late and I think we have it. More as I know it.
geir
I haven't seen or heard of any
waiting for a more robust
(clustering) solution and I believe that WADI can provide an enhanced
implementation of the Session API for G1.2. Obviously, your work will
help WADI developers to understand how to hook in WADI.
Thanks,
Gianny
Jules Gosnell wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Hi
Paul,
Can you dump the URLClassLoader paths? This may help find th answer...
Jeff
Paul McMahan wrote:
John, I got hte same error using tomcat (see below) but jetty seemed
to work OK. The error indicates that tomcat can't load the portlet
taglib descriptor file. The code in tomcat that
+1. I think trying to merge 1.1 to the current 1.2 trunk would be a
nightmare, indeed. Moving aside 1.2 and making the 1.1 copy a new trunk
is the best decision, IMHO.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I think we're at the point where 1.1 needs to bake for a bit and we'll
release it in a few weeks. Since
Hi Neeme,
Your use case is perfect for Geronimo. You could start with little-g,
or just Tomcat sitting in Geronimo and leverage some of the application
services. You could also use the Web/ActiveMQ(JMS) in Geronimo and
leverage that facility as well.
You can build on and componentize your
Chime!
TC - 5.5.15
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Here are the packages I'm recommending for 1.1. If I missed one please
chime in.
Axis from 1.4-356167to 1.4
jasper from 5.5.9to5.5.15
Jetty from5.1.9to5.1.10
stax from1.1.1-devto
David,
Great job! We have been needing this for a while. Thanks for towing
the line on this.
Jeff
David Blevins wrote:
All,
I've revived our script that creates unstable builds. Further, I've
hooked it up to run every Wednesday at 6am PST. I chose Wednesday as it
gives developers a
Geir,
It looks like we now have a BOF, care of you ;-) Is this correct?:
Thursday, 5/18 from 10:30pm to 11:20pm - BOF 9921
If so, should we talk a bit about what we should present, etc?
Anything out there the users would like to have covered?
Thanks,
Jeff
The JSF jars would not require a GBean. There are no plans to include
them in 1.X AFAIK.
However, I believe it is a required inclusion of the Java EE5 spec, so I
am pretty sure they will be included in G2.X.
Jeff
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Are there any plans to include a JSF impl inside of
should be prepared with our initial thoughts on Java EE 5 integration.
As for what users want to see, we should probably ask on the user@
list. It would be great to spend some time soliciting feature
ideas/requests.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/10/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir
Yay! Thanks for being diligent on this Dave.
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Now that we have officially upgraded to TC 5.5.15, I've gone back and
retried the clustering tests and it looks like G1.1 clustering is now
working with TC5.5.15!!
The Unable to send message through cluster sender exception
Ultimately, we probably would need to somehow build a patch directory
or lib directory where we can ensure the URLClassLoader picks that up
before all other classes. I think this is probably a good idea to have
as well, so that we could release service paks or patches. I would be
interested in
I assume the G2.X will ship with the jars. I cannot see any dependency
on the web-container at all - just the other spec jars. I really think
its just a matter of including JSF at the server level so its available
server-wide. There *may* be some classloading code to be sure there
is no
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Thanks for the quick response Jeff.
I like the idea of a system patch location in the classpath where
we can pick up patches for anything we might include in a geronimo
assembly.
I think this
I think we will be taking this further and have a more robust roadmap
for Geronimo on the wiki that will track the direction and hopefully
back that up with tracking JIRAs, so we can see where we are at.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Developers,
A user recently posed the following question on
We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the sandbox, but
will have a need for the session api ;-)
Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new trunk
version that is)? (Need 3 +1s)
Jeff
/session
Jeff
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the sandbox, but
will have a need for the session api ;-)
Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new trunk
version that is)? (Need 3 +1s)
Jeff
What
is branched. I'm not at
all fine with it going into 1.1 and getting released in 1.1: I don't
think we should release an api that has not been proved to work well.
thanks
david jencks
On May 22, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put
, and thus was asking that it be merged
for the new trunk from 1.2, so that we may push forward with this first
swipe, since its a dependency.
I hope that helps.
I think I have 2 +1s (Dain and DJ)...need one more ;-)
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
Let me make myself clear from my original message
Thats 3! Ok...as soon as the new trunk is cut, I will merge in the
session API.
Thanks!
Jeff
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
+1 new trunk
-1 current 1.1 branch - I think we're trying to get this out but I'm not
intransigent on this
Regards,
Alan
Jeff Genender wrote:
The session API
well.
thanks
david jencks
On May 22, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the sandbox, but
will have a need for the session api ;-)
Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new trunk
version that is)? (Need 3 +1s
+1 from me.
David Jencks wrote:
I'd like to apply the patch
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12334350/GERONIMO-2006.patch
from http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2006
It fixes a buffer overflow problem in tomcat (which presumably doesn't
need a vote since it's
Matt,
I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
of the 3)...
We have some nice patches coming up...
Dunno if that helps :/
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working
on DayTrader as well as DevTools.
Prasad,
I can fix #1. I need to dig up some old code from the 1.4.3 version. I
converted to a forked version because it really lightened the amount of
code in the plugin. But I have heard of this being an issue, so I may
fatten the plugin up a little bit and force a call to javac once again.
these for now. Once the maven jiras are ready, we shall patch the
application pom(s) again.
Cheers
Prasad
On 5/31/06, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanx Jeff. Please see comments inline -
Cheers
Prasad
On 5/31/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prasad,
I can fix
I have some updates to the daytrader poms that make the ear class-path
entries correct in the manifests. The patch is included with this
email...
Thanks,
Jeff
Index: modules/ejb/pom.xml
===
--- modules/ejb/pom.xml (revision 410427)
I'll do it...you will probably get space errors since I just copied and
pasted into the email.
Ok...now its done ;-)
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff, this doesn't require a review since its fixing the issues with
construction. Thanks...I'll
apply this.
Jeff Genender wrote:
I have some updates
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I posted a note a few days ago with my proposed plan for releasing 1.1.
There was only one response from Jason so I will take the silence as
acceptance of the plan. Today I will:
* be moving all JIRAs out from 1.1 and moving them to 1.2.
* Cutting a release build
I would be happy to help out.
Jeff
Hi,
I believe that OSCON is offering free booth space to the ASF. The
registration deadline for the next OSCON in Portland (end of July) is
this Monday, June 5.
IBM is offering the PRC logistical and financial support, e.g. t-shirts
et cetera, for this
Kevan,
I totally agree with you. I think eyeballing a patch is more than
good enough to wage a +1. I surely do not have the time to apply and
test every patch.
Thanks,
Jeff
Kevan Miller wrote:
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo
(or at least I'm
+1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is in
preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can
claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And
it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
working
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can
claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And
it's easy to wink
also choose to look the other way and
continue down the path that we have. We know exactly where that path
leads us from a consequences perspective, and its not good.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I
release strategy for 1.2 and see
how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
try something different for the release after.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has
nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point
here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
clearly
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But
out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea
Comment below...
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going
to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
explaining the work
Great email from Alan. Alan, feel free to share these feelings with the
group. I am inspired that you have similar thoughts as many of us (not
that I ever even questioned that ;-) ].
Thanks.
Jeff
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Alan,
Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all
Why would you want Jobs based GBeans? This makes no sense to me. Those
are innately Quartz objects in their own right. IMHO, everything does
not need to be a GBean...especially when working with 3rd party
components. I am personally against Jobs being GBeans...
I would leave every thing
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I looked at the developerworks article. The GBean there is extremely
simple. It starts a Quartz scheduler, but has no code or methods to
configure it or do anything with it. I think it was more a
demonstration of how to write a GBean than anything else.
Thats
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/11/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you want Jobs based GBeans? This makes no sense to me. Those
are innately Quartz objects in their own right. IMHO, everything does
not need to be a GBean...especially when working with 3rd party
components. I am
/jobs
On 6/11/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I looked at the developerworks article. The GBean there is extremely
simple. It starts a Quartz scheduler, but has no code or methods to
configure it or do anything with it. I think it was more
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/11/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following your analogy we would be making GBeans for individual EJB
instances. What am I missing?
I guess you're missing JSR-77, which seems to say that we should have
GBeans for individual EJB instances. Servlets
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/11/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following your analogy we would be making GBeans for individual EJB
instances. What am I missing?
I guess you're missing JSR-77, which seems to say
-1...there is a large spot here for plugins...especially ones under the
ASF license. I am still against the geronimoplugins.com thing as it
still needs addressing.
I personally think we, as geronimo, should have a system that is very
similar in nature to Eclipse plugins. I do not see why we
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I think the problem here is the GBean framework is not flexible enough
to support this. The integrations of Tomcat, Spring, ServiceMix, and
ActiveMQ have been extremely painful and have resulted in (no offense)
very limited integrations.
No offense taken. Painful is
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
My knowledge of the Tomcat integration is limited, but from what I
understand the integration is limited to what we put in out GBean
wrappers. From you statements, it sounds like we have full Tomcat
support, but every time they add a new feature we have to update the
+1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I apologize for resending this to the lists. I inadvertantly did not
put [vote] in the subject line so it may not have been apparent. The
remainder of this e-mail is the same content that was distributed last
night.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Over the past few days the
I probably can help out.
Jeff
Carmen Hagen wrote:
Heard that the Atlanta JUG is interested in having a Geronimo committer
speak at their October 17th meeting. Anyone interested? Please let me
know as soon as possible, and I'll get you connected. Thanks!
John Sisson wrote:
Jeff,
if you end up going and the JUG is open to all, then could you update
the events page with the details.
Sure...lets see if I am going for sure first ;-)
Thanks,
John
Jeff Genender wrote:
I probably can help out.
Jeff
Carmen Hagen wrote:
Heard
+1
Hiram Chirino wrote:
+1
On 6/13/06, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is really a pretty simple minded uncontroversial patch that's
been sitting around for 3 or 4 days now after 2 quick +1's. I know
we're trying to get 1.1 out the door but another review would be
really
brows raised
at that one. Let's be
consistent in our interpretations.
Jeff Genender wrote:
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was
going
to do. This all comes back to the lack
am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or
lack thereof regarding this site.
Thanks,
Jeff
Regards,
Hiram
On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
I
Ok...I can do #1, but we have a problem.
I could get the servlet-examples-5.5.12.war and jsp-examples-5.5.12.war
to the ibiblio repo...but what happens is, since we have no deployment
plan with them, the default URL will become:
http://localhost:8080/servlet-examples-5.5.12/
and
I was think about this too and it would be very helpful...
What about each plan goes in:
./config-store/XXX/plan
where XXX is the deployment id.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I don't think that would be such a bad idea -- storing the original
plan in the config-store somewhere.
Aaron
On
+1...he is a great choice.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
+1 for Matt as release manager
-dain
be a negative for them. We to get their input on this before doing it.
Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Ok...I can do #1, but we have a problem.
I could get the servlet-examples-5.5.12.war and
jsp-examples-5.5.12.war to the ibiblio repo...but what happens is,
since we have no deployment plan
201 - 300 of 1297 matches
Mail list logo
