Geronimo 2.0.1 is using XBean 3.0.1 versions of xbean-naming and
xbean-finder and 3.1 version of xbean-reflect. Anybody recall why
we're not using 3.1 versions of all xbean artifacts? If I knew, I've
forgotten... ;-)
--kevan
On Sep 7, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Your email is not registered on that list. It was waiting on the
moderator queue and I have just released it.
Thanks.
I'm still confused... ;-) Is there a unique SCM list for XBean? I'm
guessing that there must be... I don't see David
On Sep 7, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Your email is not registered on that list. It was waiting on the
moderator queue and I have just released it.
OK. I found the archive for xbean-scm (http://mail-
archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-xbean-scm/). I've updated
On Sep 7, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Does it mean we will need to spin a new RC?
We can't release the binaries in their current state. So, yes.
--kevan
Vamsi
On 9/7/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Tim,
Apologies for my slow review of the Eclipse plugin
Hey Tim,
Apologies for my slow review of the Eclipse plugin. Reviewing the
binary distribution, it looks like we are missing license and notice
information for xpp3. There may be a few more notices missing, also.
With your permission, I'll make updates to the license and notice
files in
On Sep 6, 2007, at 5:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 6, 2007, at 12:52 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I think we should start using the maven-remote-resources-
plugin. I will get to it eventually for sufficiently distant
values
The intent of this thread is to discuss the default log level for the
Geronimo server. I'd like to limit the discussion to the near-term
(e.g. Geronimo 2.0.x). IMO, we need a good overhaul of our logging
code. I'd like to see more structure and consistency in our logging.
However, that's
On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
The intent of this thread is to discuss the default log level for
the Geronimo server. I'd like to limit the discussion to the near-
term (e.g. Geronimo 2.0.x). IMO, we need a good overhaul
On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Are you refering to console output or what is captured in the log
file?
Heh. Come on, read my mind... :-P
I'm referring to the log FILE. I'm fine with our current CONSOLE
behavior...
--kevan
On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
I think we have an acceptable solution for this whole CXF/Spring
issue. First, CXF will continue to be configured with Spring as
before. Second, all web applications will now get an automatic
hidden-classes filtering for Spring classes and
On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given all of the work and interest in the J2G tool, I would like to
move the current J2G files from sandbox/j2g to devtools/trunk/j2g,
so we can start working towards an official release of the tool.
Does this require a Vote first or does
On Sep 12, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 9/8/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I raised a concern about moving trunk to sandbox since it's the only
branch that contains the annotation support needed by Geronimo. A
committer responded that he will think about
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:17 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm converting all of the assemblies tonight, should be done in
another hour or so.
But, currently server/trunk is not building due to:
snip
[INFO] Compiling 18 source files to /Users/jason/ws/geronimo/server/
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
I think we also need to update the license in the
feature.properties file for each of the feature we provide.
Right now, I only saw ASL 2.0 there. The license in the
feature.properties file
Apologies for such a late response. This thread came out while I was
on vacation and got buried by a lot of other things...
This is a good list. Comments, below.
On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:12 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Getting 2.0.1 out the door was a great step and now might be a good
time to
I thought I'd take the opportunity to send some love David B's way...
I think it's great the way he's been addressing these user questions
and documenting in the Wiki.
I hope we can get this stuff organized so that users can find this
information in a reasonable manner...
--kevan
On Sep
All,
I think it's time to start rolling out a 2.0.2 release. There have
been a number of fixes in response to user issues, since 2.0.1. Time,
I think, to make these available in a release. We'd also be able to
make use of released versions of OpenJPA, Axis2, and hopefully
OpenEjb,
On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi Lin/Kevan, do you all feel this change is a show-stopped for
RC2 ?? If so,
I'll cancel the vote and start another one for RC3. Please advise.
Thanks.
Hey Tim,
From a binary perspective, things are fine. However, if the
installation
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Ugh... I had a feeling that this filtering will cause problems for
someone. Anyway, in general I think moving the hidden-classes filter
to the CXF deployer is a better solution (to keep it all together and
assuming it has the same effect as when
I'm moving this to the '[DISCUSS] G 2.0.2 Release Plan' mail thread.
--kevan
On 9/17/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by
9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to
bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new
release contains several bug fixes,
On 9/17/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking of versions I think we should go to openjpa 1.0.0 the
trunk build has been broken for a bit since the -r* snapshot openejb
was using seems to have disappeared.
Hmm. A while back, I moved branches/2.0 and trunk to OpenJPA
Moved from another mail thread...
On 9/17/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is. I kinda thought
that a x.y.z where z 0 was a bugfix-only release of x.y.z-1 but I
think some new features are going into 2.0.2... IIUC Vamsi is
applying an
I have not tested, but source and binaries look good...
+1
--kevan
On Sep 20, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Also, the changes in txmanager aren't enough to warrant another
components release. The txmanager change was only to fix a
misspelling in an exception message...
Ya. However, there was a Transaction Recovery jira opened. I'm going
to
On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Right. We have talked about this before and the majority opinion was
to have a separate subject line.
I have a gmail reader, but then again it's not about how I want it.
I'll gladly put whatever the majority of the community decides.
Start
On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I guess given that no framework support it and that nobody uses this
jar yet, I will just defer ;-)
Many thanks for this explanation.
There isn't a current release of the commonj spec. We only released
commonj when we released all specs
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Will we have a released version of MyFaces 1.2.1? I believe we do
not want to include any SNAPSHOT versions as dependencies in our
releases.
We can request a release when it is
On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Kevan,
This should be created from rev 563889. I had one commit to the
branch in rev 577161 (just correcting a typo) post what was used in
2.0.1. Though I had sent an e-mail earlier to the dev-list about
creating this tag I
All,
I'm going to be giving a Geronimo talk at the LinuxWorld Open
Solutions Conference, in Tokyo on Thursday of this week.
The talk is from 11:00-11:45. Here are the conference details --
http://www.idg.co.jp/expo/lwe/index.html
--kevan
On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Sep 20, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
I am leaning towards deploying MEJB as an EJBModule. To auto
deploy
this I will be adding an mejb config. Are there any objections?
no :-)
I've been wondering if we should try to
On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:51 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I've committed to branches/2.0 also.
Thanks David!
I think this leaves us with:
* integration of the MEJB code itself
* release of OpenEJB 3.0-Beta
One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has been
changed in OpenEJB. So,
On Sep 25, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Vamsi,
In general I think we agree on how things should be handled when
schema changes. Also, the patch I looked at had schema changes made in
the existing .xsd files and I assumed that the new files would be
introduced in trunk only. But since
On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
One thing I've noticed -- the default JNDI name for EJB's has been
changed in OpenEJB. So, there is a compatibility issue with 2.0.1.
We might be able to configure how OpenEJB generates
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
OK, I'm done updating the 2.0.x closed issues (sorry for all the
JIRA emails.)
The only one I couldn't figure out, was:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3423
Donald,
Thanks a bunch for going through all of those Jiras!
On Sep 26, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
OK, I'm done updating the 2.0.x closed issues (sorry for all the
JIRA emails.)
The only one I couldn't figure out, was:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3423
Donald
On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Gianny Damour wrote:
Hi Matt,
Yes: I would like to add this dependency from the Eclipse
Foundation to a config so that it gets included in the assemblies:
dependency
groupIdaspectj/groupId
artifactIdaspectjrt/artifactId
The sources jars (e.g. http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-3.2/org/
apache/xbean/xbean-classloader/3.2/xbean-classloader-3.2-sources.jar)
are missing LICENSE and NOTICE files.
The xbean-reflect pom (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
tags/xbean-3.2/xbean-reflect/pom.xml) is
On Oct 3, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
We aren't pulling WADI into the Tomcat assemblies yet, so only the
Jetty assemblies need the update, right?
Technically correct. However, we aren't that granular at the moment.
We currently don't differentiate between tomcat/jetty,
On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I think Kevan was going to do this yesterday but in his sleep
deprived state from Globe trotting he may still be snoozing. I'll
let him whack me on the head if my notice is inconsistent with his
desire as release manager.
We'll create
On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
What's the plan for creating a 2.0.2 branch in preparation of
closing down the release?
Matt sent a note earlier today, while I was in a jet-lagged impose
slumber... I'll plan on creating a branches/2.0.2 for finalizing
release activity on
On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have finally uploaded a new release condidate.
Please review. I have only modified the root pom to make sure the
jars include the needed files.
Great. Thanks Guillaume.
+1
--kevan
On Oct 3, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
I am surprised that the ServerInfo reference is not there in the
file because http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/server/trunk/
configs/jetty6/src/plan/plan.xml?r1=577801r2=577800pathrev=577801
shows that it is there in the commit!!
On Oct 2, 2007, at 11:01 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It would be a powered by version if the name is used. AFAICT there
is no restriction to take the code and call it Chris' Benchmark. I
spect there are others out there with more insight on how some of
this work. Bill Stoddard would know
On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Jason Warner wrote:
You're using the correct command to build the tool. I just checked
out the latest version and built it with no issues? It was
recently moved to the devtools component. Is that where you
checked it out from? What problems are you
All,
I've created a 2.0.2 release branch -- https://svn.apache.org/repos/
asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0.2
And have updated the branches/2.0 version to be 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT (with
a helping hand from Donald :)
Vamsi is working on an update to the CA Helper in the console.
Joe B is working
On Oct 8, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
It looks like you're building from the ui package. The ui package
has dependencies on a few other packages in j2g. The error your
getting is complaining about not being able to find a built version
of those packages. That error message
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Added: geronimo/devtools/j2g/trunk/plugins/
org.apache.geronimo.devtools.j2g.resources/test-apps/security/
geronimo-secutiry-plan.xml
Hi Lin,
'security' is misspelled in this new plan name...
--kevan
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
Hi Kevan,
Could you try building with mvn install? I am able to build j2g
fine with that.
Yes, 'mvn install' completes without error. However, I don't think
that's running a full build... I see individual jar files are built,
but there's no
On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Cool, thanks for doing this.
As soon as you're done with this JIRA, I'll create a branch for a
1.0.0 release
I'd like to know how to build and run j2g...
There are no license/notice files, atm... Also, RAT is flagging the
following
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Oh, I think I know what's going on. Jetty is configured with 3
connectors. Each connector is configured with 50 threads. So by the
time the server starts up all the threads in the pool are taken..
Looks like in Jetty we must set the thread pool
As discussed in the Geronimo 2.0.2 release discussion thread, we need
to release geronimo-txmanager 2.0.2 to pick up fixes for the Geronimo
2.0.2 release. geronimo-txmanager contains the geronimo-transaction
and geronimo-connector components.
The proposed binary release artifacts can be
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
All,
I've created a 2.0.2 release branch -- https://svn.apache.org/
repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0.2
And have updated the branches/2.0 version to be 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT
(with a helping hand from Donald :)
Vamsi
All,
Geronimo is scheduled to give a Board report on October 17th.
Here is a wiki page to gather status -- http://cwiki.apache.org/
confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Apache+Geronimo+Board+Report+-+2007-10+-
+October
Please have your updates in by Sunday October 14th. This allows the
status to be
On Oct 11, 2007, at 11:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: prasad
Date: Thu Oct 11 08:23:05 2007
New Revision: 583850
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=583850view=rev
Log:
* checking in scripts that run daily build, run testsuite and tck
smoketests
Added:
All,
I've updated the versions in branches/2.0.2 from 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT to
2.0.2. No code changes should be going into 2.0.2.
I'm going to be finalizing the release notes and building binaries
later tonight.
The ibiblio repo is having problems this afternoon. To build
successfully, I had
On Aug 8, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
And... this is done. I don't know what else needs to be changed...
if anyone runs into any problems lemme know.
The new location for this puppy in svn is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
Props need to check the current
On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
[ ] +1 Release geronimo-txmanager 2.0.2
[ ] 0 No opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release geronimo-txmanager 2.0.2
Oops. Accidentally sent my vote directly to myself instead of the dev
list.
Here's my +1.
--kevan
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
Donald,
I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we
can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
Right. They aren't ok. And must be fixed
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
Donald,
I'm still unsure of the status of the license files for J2G. If we
can get a confirmation that those are ok, then I'm all for
releasing a 1.0.0. Otherwise, I think we should hold off.
By the way, the patches seem to be missing a
On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: kevan
Date: Thu Oct 11 21:25:03 2007
New Revision: 584040
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=584040view=rev
Log:
Add RELEASE-NOTES for 2.0.2 release
.
All
A reminder about this release vote. Hoping to call the vote tomorrow.
--kevan
On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
As discussed in the Geronimo 2.0.2 release discussion thread, we
need to release geronimo-txmanager 2.0.2 to pick up fixes for the
Geronimo 2.0.2 release
All,
I've prepared a 2.0.2 release candidate for review and vote.
http://people.apache.org/~kevan/release-votes/geronimo-2.0.2-dist/
contains the 8 Java EE and Minimal server (tar/zip and tomcat/jetty)
binaries. Here are pointers to the zip files:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
[ ] +1 Release Geronimo 2.0.2
[ ] 0 No opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release Geronimo 2.0.2 (please provide rationale)
Here's my +1
--kevan
All,
The vote passed with 10 +1 votes and no -1 votes.
I'll work on pushing the binaries, but not tonight -- probably tomorrow.
--kevan
On Oct 15, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
snip
I should have reported this early. This should read Updated CA
(Certification Authority) Helper application. CA Helper
application is not part of the Admin Console. Not a big thing
though, but, do consider this change if
Thanks for the votes so far. The 72 hours expires at 10 PM (EDT),
this evening. I'll give it a bit more time for others to inspect.
I'll plan on calling the vote tomorrow morning -- around 9 AM my time...
--kevan
On Oct 16, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Maybe try getting a thread dump while the process appears to be
hanging (kill -QUIT jvm process). That might give a clue on what's
going on.
You can also try tracking memory utilization (since there have been
multiple reports of needing more
On Oct 17, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Ashish Jain wrote:
Any help on this issue
On 10/16/07, Ashish Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to simulate the allowHosts feature for geronimo
2.0.1 which was available in geronimo 1.2. With geronimo 1.2 it
works fine and I am able to
All,
This vote has passed with a unanimous 17 +1 votes.
Thanks all. Will start pushing binaries...
--kevan
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
All,
I've prepared a 2.0.2 release candidate for review and vote.
http://people.apache.org/~kevan/release-votes/geronimo-2.0.2-dist
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Ashish Jain wrote:
Hi Kevan,
It would be great if we can have allowHosts feature
back in AG. Shall I open a jira for this issue?
Hi Ashish,
Yes, thanks. That would be helpful.
--kevan
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:49 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
Hi Kevan, I've marked G3309 as resolved. I documented my analysis
in the latest few comments I added in the JIRA. If there is
anything else that is missing from a legal point of view, please
let me know.
Hi Lin,
That's great. Thanks for
The Geronimo project has learned of a security vulnerability in the
Apache Tomcat Webdav Servlet implementation. If you use a Tomcat
configuration of Geronimo and configure a write-enabled Webdav
servlet, you may be affected by this vulnerability. If you do not
configure the Webdav servlet
Hi Lin,
Great. 2 minor comments...
--kevan
On Oct 18, 2007, at 2:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: linsun
Date: Thu Oct 18 11:56:41 2007
New Revision: 586078
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=586078view=rev
Log:
some changes per Kevan's comments on license/notice file on dev list
All,
Wanted to let everyone know that the Geronimo 2.0.2 binaries are
available for download -- http://geronimo.apache.org/downloads.html
2.0.2 addresses a number of issues that were found in our 2.0.1
release, including the MEJB security vulnerability.
Great work everyone!
--kevan
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Guy Pardon wrote:
Hi,
This component: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/
components/txmanager/
...does not seem to figure in the source distribution 2.0.2 - or
did I miss something?
Hi Guy,
components are released separately from our server
On Oct 23, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Guy Pardon wrote:
Hi,
I see. Then what is the name of the component's classes jar and
where is it in the distribution?
They are:
repository/org/apache/geronimo/components/geronimo-transaction/2.0.2/
geronimo-transaction-2.0.2.jar
On Oct 23, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Peter Petersson wrote:
I still have problem building G v2.0.2 from svn tag
org.apache.xbean:xbean-naming:jar:3.2-r579367 is missing anyone
else seeing this ?
regards
That's caused by a build of xbean created by OpenEJB. The jar file
can be found here:
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about
the Geronimo Eclipse plugin:
1. How many versions of the Geronimo server should we continue to
simultaneously support in the Geronimo Eclipse plugin ??
2. What level of
On Oct 26, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I don't see why we shouldn't. But can someone more informed please
list the pros and cons.
Here's my list:
Pro's
* Easier for other projects to reuse GShell
* Release cycle not tied to Geronimo server release cycle
Con's
* Small
On Oct 26, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Is it time to remove the old/unused plan files from trunk? I mean the
plan files in configs/module/src/plan/plan.xml. They have been
replaced by plans in configs/module/src/main/plan/plan.xml.
Sounds good...
--kevan
Hi Orion,
Thanks for the note. I'm definitely interested in progress on the
geronimo terracotta plugin. So thanks for giving us a status update.
I have one clarification, below...
On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Orion Letizi wrote:
On Monday, we demonstrated the bitchen geronimo terracotta
On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that Geir has to ACK that the paperwork was completed. Has
he done so?
I don't see an ACK on our tck list. I recall that Tim had a lot of
problems getting the NDA acked.
Geir,
Do you have an NDA on file for Jay McHugh? If
On Oct 28, 2007, at 4:30 AM, Heinz Drews wrote:
Hello,
is there any fix or bypass available to get rid of
[INFO]
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO]
On 10/29/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin
in the
future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is
narrowly
scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the
name).
I think it's time to start discussing the particulars of a 2.1 release.
There's been a lot of advancements made in our plugin infrastructure.
There's also been the pluggable console enhancements. It would be good
to get a release out, with these capabilities. They provide a more
solid
No, not in my opinion. I haven't heard of any dissenters. There's been
plenty of time for someone to raise an objection. I say -- have at it...
--kevan
On 11/1/07, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So shall we move the project out of the sandbox? Do we need an
official vote for this?
+1. I ran RAT and inspected the binaries. All looked good. Thanks Donald!
--kevan
On 10/30/07, Donald Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The maven-plugins are build tools used by the Eclipse Plugin and J2G
tools and are not included in either tool.
A 72 hour vote is being called for the
What are they .project and .classpath files? They don't have ASL license
headers...
I assume JBoss is a trademarked name. We are using it in some file names and
in some file contents. Are we handling this correctly? I don't know the
answer off hand.
There was a recent discussion about aggregating
Strange. In
j2g-eclipse-plugin-1.0.0-RC1-deployable.ziphttp://people.apache.org/~dwoods/releases/j2g-1.0.0/j2g-eclipse-plugin-1.0.0-RC1-deployable.zipthe
LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files are write-only (i.e. I have to chmod +r to
read them). I haven't tried building yet. Is this an artifact of
On Nov 8, 2007 8:55 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know why IRC is not being logged?
Don't know why, but I've pinged the contact we've used in the past at
uwyn.com. Hopefully we can get it restarted...
--kevan
On Nov 7, 2007 6:47 PM, khaldi hinda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have to represent the Project Apache Geronimo during a lecture
of Software Project Management.
It is possible to send me the Geronimo Project Management Documents
(more precisely : aim of the architecture, all about
On Nov 8, 2007 8:55 AM, Anita Kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know why IRC is not being logged?
I think this should be fixed, now... Somebody needs to start an IRC
conversation, before we know for sure... ;-)
--kevan
On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Gianluca wrote:
Apache Geronimo J2EE server 2.0 is now officially supported by JOSSO
1.6 for
both Single Sign-On Agent and Gateway deployments.
For detailed technical guidelines on how to setup JOSSO with Apache
Geronimo
see :
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Hey y'all,
I started to map some of the new features/functions to the 2.1
documentation.
I just created a new wiki space http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21
and created some initial entries. Pls chime in with your ideas for
topics to cover
Hi Gianny,
I notice that this scheme is storing admin username and password in
clear text. It will also make the username/password accessible via
JMX. I think we need to avoid this. Would prefer to see this
information handled in a manner more consistent with our handling of
sensitive
On Nov 13, 2007 4:40 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Gianny,I notice that this scheme is storing admin username and
password in clear text. It will also make the username/password accessible
via JMX. I think we need to avoid this. Would prefer to see this information
handled
On Nov 16, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Siamak Sarmady wrote:
Hello,
I was speaking over email with Jacek Laskowski about his netbeans
plugin.
For sometimes I have been using Geronimo with Eclipse and I should
say it is much more faster than Glasfish.
I am sure if the netbeans plugin can be
On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 8:37 AM, Jacek Laskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just to let you know I'm still working on it and ended up with the
following plan with no changes to the sample application - booking.
With the plan I can easily deploy the
On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
Hi Joe,
After some investigations, here is my understanding of problem 1:
there are two deployments because by default, i.e. when no target is
specified, the distribute command executes against all the
configuration stores defined by a
401 - 500 of 3005 matches
Mail list logo