On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:14 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
4. add objects to inject resources
Here's where I get confused. Add objects to inject resources into
what? The confusing part is that injection is done on instances
of components (servlets
On Dec 12, 2006, at 4:20 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:14 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
4. add objects to inject resources
Here's where I get confused. Add objects to inject resources
into what? The confusing part
on it, etc.
I'd prefer to do this after we get 1.2-beta and 2.0-m1 out the door.
Sure. We can start creating the separate modules now, but we can
leave 1.2-beta and 2.0-m1 using their own copies.
On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I monitor a bunch of lists and it looks
of the world there are no request specific
injections. Not sure about the servlet side of things.
-David
- Original Message
From: David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Cc: Greg Wilkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:43:56 PM
Subject: Re
On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I monitor a bunch of lists and it looks like the Geronimo
transaction library is getting pretty popular. Looks like Ofbiz,
ODE, and Tuscany are now using it. That's in addition
I tried to build OpenEJB 2.2 with the released tranql-1.4 and nearly
all of the org.apache.openejb.deployment.entity.cmp.cmr.* test fail.
Going to see if I can't find a good revision...
-David
On Dec 13, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All TranQL artifacts have now been released.
Cool. They look great!
Could you do some release notes for 1.2 beta also?
-David
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Hi All,
Here is a template for the v2.0-M1 release notes.
It is not complete and really need your input, specially for the
know issues and limitations
On Dec 14, 2006, at 3:00 PM, toby cabot wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 02:08:25PM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
When I tried to build from src I got the error message below. Do I
need to add the repo at http://people.apache.org/~dain/stage/
Here's my +1.
Nicely formatted too! ;-)
-David
On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
The 1.2-beta release and all dependencies are cut and awaiting your
vote! All the files are available in a staging area in my home dir on
people.
On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:53 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
I took a quick look at Jetty and Tomcat source. Tomcat has some
complete looking code for injection via JNDI, except it seems it only
supports using annotations as the source of injection data,
nothing for
xml
+1
-David
On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:57 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
I have prepared 2.0-M1 for release. Of course all the hard work
was done by the lot of y'all :)
I have tested DayTrader 2.0-SNAPSHOT on this build and I'm
satisfied with the results. All modes of operation functioned
On Dec 18, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Process of branching and tagging (we already have a plethora of
discussion...I think this needs to get on a Wiki)
- includes tags and modifications
Discussion, proposal, resolution and final vote.
On Dec 18, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm trying to build the OpenEJB 2.2 release so that I can continue
working on Geronimo CTS/TCK automation... but the openejb-2.2
release tag is not buildable in a clean environment:
[...]
I am not sure that this is a priority for many folks,
A note, please do not add headers to the following:
==package-info.java (./xbean-finder/src/test/java/org/acme/foo/
package-info.java)
==java.io.InputStream (./xbean-finder/src/test/resources/META-INF/
java.io.InputStream)
==java.io.OutputStream (./xbean-finder/src/test/resources/META-INF/
On Dec 19, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
On 12/16/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 15, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Yikes... what happened on this change?
The diff shows a lot more changed than just what was indicated in
the comment...
Ya,
I've done the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant
and would like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot
references from our builds.
The first one I fixed is javax.annotation 1.0:
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
Verified and compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this branch as final.
Here's my +1
-David
Verified and compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release this branch as final.
Here's my +1
-David
On Dec 21, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent we
generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I
think Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he be
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I think David is treating the branch as somewhat official and is
bringing the community into it...nothing wrong with a healthy vote.
I suggest we head off what looks like may be turning into
On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this vote. BAsed on passed precedent
we generally vote on a set of binaries and not a source tree. I
think Dain offered to own releasing specs so will he
On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It was something Roy said recently on Incubator general that
enlightened.
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
FYI
Binaries here:
http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/apache/geronimo/
specs/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec/1.0/
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Verified and compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches
Binaries:
http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/apache/geronimo/
specs/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec/1.0/
On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I've done the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are
compliant and would like us to start releasing them
Binaries here:
http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/apache/geronimo/
specs/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec/1.0/
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs
Binaries are up!
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/org/apache/
openejb/
-David
Yea, it's no fun. I've been slowly getting around this by editing
my /etc/hosts file to point people.apache.org at repo1.maven.org
which doesn't fix much other than keeping your builds from hanging.
Then i've slowly been building all the source for the SNAPSHOT deps
we have with maven.
Vote passes with 8 +1s (7 binding) and no other votes.
-David
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Verified and compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we release
Vote passes with 8 +1s (7 binding) and no other votes.
-David
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Verified and compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we
Vote passes with 7 +1s (6 binding) and no other votes.
-David
On Dec 20, 2006, at 11:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
I hereby propose we
Vote passes with 9 +1s (8 binding) and no other votes.
-David
On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I've done the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are
compliant and would like us to start releasing them and removing
snapshot references from our builds.
The first one
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
Built Binaries: http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/stage-specs/org/
apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/1.0/
I hereby propose we
Hey All, back and catching up.
As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed I've done the
work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and would
like us to start releasing them and removing snapshot references from
our builds. I've since started abbreviating that to
On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:21 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 2, 2007, at 5:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Hey All, back and catching up.
As I mentioned in the first specs vote that I proposed I've done
the work to fix some of our spec jars so they are compliant and
would like us to start
We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please
vote! :)
Going to close this out tomorrow.
-David
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs
On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
+1 ... sorry for the delay.
Already counted you with your I'm ok with the vote proceeding as
is...+1 comment.
-David
On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
We have 6 +1 votes, but it'd be really nice to have more. Please
On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with
most of your steps
below. However, since it seems that annotations are now pervasive
in many of the JSR
specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably
Vote passes with 6 +1s (5 binding) and no other votes.
-David
On Dec 28, 2006, at 1:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Fixed, verified to be compliant and ready for release.
Release Branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
branches/geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec/
Built Binaries: http
for
accuracy and to fill in any missing.
-David
David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with
most of your steps
below. However, since it seems that annotations are now
pervasive in many of the JSR
On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Chris Cardona has been trying to test the jacc 1.1 extended http-
method support by deploying slide (GERONIMO-1747) and I don't know
enough about regular expressions to see where the problem is.
The http 1.1 spec says:
(5.1.1)
:
javax.xml.ws.addressing.Action
javax.xml.ws.addressing.FaultAction
Strange
-David
David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi David, your definitive list of JEE5 annotations is wonderful--
I've been looking all over the
place trying to locate the authoritative source
On Jan 4, 2007, at 7:35 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 6:12 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 4, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Chris Cardona has been trying to test the jacc 1.1 extended http-
method support by deploying slide (GERONIMO-1747) and I don't
know enough
On Jan 5, 2007, at 4:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I fixed GERONIMO-2686 in 1.2 but have not been able to figure out
what if any openejb2 version is supposed to go with it. If the
openejb2 version exists and is not 2.3 (trunk) the changes may have
broken the openejb2 build. See rev 493187
On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:28 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking into integrating CXF with OpenEJB (OpenEJB3 specifically
as that's the version that supposed to be integrated in M2). I see
that OpenEJB2 has a bunch of code for web services
On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
On 1/9/07, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:28 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking into integrating CXF with OpenEJB (OpenEJB3
specifically
as that's
Yep. We now have final versions of these:
geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.0
geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec-1.0
geronimo-interceptor_3.0_spec-1.0
geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.0
-David
On Jan 11, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Same with geronimo-jta_1.1_spec
Also, looks
On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right now.
It appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile and startup
fine... though none of that really uses transactions.
Anyone know
in the path.
-David
--jason
On Jan 11, 2007, at 8:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Should we be using the jta 1.1 spec?
Everywhere in server/trunk is configured to use 1.0.1B right
now. It appears that when using 1.1 the server will compile
So I don't forget, some commons projects need JDK 1.3 compiled
versions of some of our J2EE 1.4 specs, so at some when I get a spare
cycle I plan to build and put those up for a vote.
-David
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: January 10, 2007 11:27:41 AM
On Jan 15, 2007, at 7:07 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Based on the previous discussions about releases it looks like were
about ready to branch for M2. Release notes are coming together
and lots of other improvements to M2 have been added. I think the
big thing we need to flush out is the
On Jan 15, 2007, at 5:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 7:07 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Based on the previous discussions about releases it looks like
were about ready to branch for M2. Release notes are coming
together and lots of other improvements to M2 have been added
On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:29 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
I looked at openejb3 pom at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3
It is using 1.2-beta for all the geronimo jars!
Right, that's actually ok, we just need some excludes in the geronimo-
openejb* poms.
On Jan 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 1/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dain
Date: Thu Jan 18 22:51:43 2007
New Revision: 497717
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=497717
Log:
Stubbed out ejb daemon gbean
...
+public class
Jarek, if you can send me the app I can take a look.
-David
On Jan 19, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Dain,
This is just a simple EJB that tires to use JAXB or StAX API. It is
not exposed (or deployed) as a web service.
Jarek
On 1/19/07, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep your ejb related plan files intact or a copy of them at least.
I'm going to try and write a conversion tool that will at least
handle trivial apps. A non-trivial app would be one with CMPs. The
new mapping.xml format for cmps is the jpa mapping.xml and converting
that will be a
to demonstrate dependency injection of the bean into a
servlet and obviates the need for the deployment-descriptor.
But I learnt from David Blevins that while the app may not need a DD,
geronimo doesn't yet support ear archives with no ejb-jar.xml. It
doesn't know to give them to openejb. Hence under his
On Jan 19, 2007, at 5:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Keep your ejb related plan files intact or a copy of them at
least. I'm going to try and write a conversion tool that will at
least handle trivial apps. A non-trivial app would be one with
CMPs. The new mapping.xml format for cmps
/geronimo/server/trunk/testsuite/
webservices-testsuite/jaxb-tests/jaxb-ejb/
Cheers
Prasad
On 1/19/07, Jarek Gawor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David,
It's a test case in Geronimo source code. See
testsuite/webservices-testsuite/jaxb-tests/jaxb-ejb directory.
Jarek
On 1/19/07, David Blevins [EMAIL
On Jan 22, 2007, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 22, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Jarek,
I had the same error.
Try something like the following in your openejb-jar.xml
openejb-jar xmlns=http://www.openejb.org/openejb-jar/1.1;
ejb-deployment ejb-name=Calculator
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I was able to deploy the app successfully but only after using an
openejb-jar.xml.
Dain Blevins,
On the irc discussion on Sat, 01/20, we thought that an
openejb-jar.xml is not mandatory. I debugged the builder and realized
the contrary.
In
Ok. All of these issues should be fixed.
-David
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I was able to deploy the app successfully but only after using an
openejb-jar.xml.
Dain Blevins,
On the irc discussion on Sat, 01/20, we
On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It looks like we have the makings of the M2 milestone that has been
talked about. Dave and Dain made a huge chunk of code available so
that one can deploy and use (in limited ways) EJB 3.0. Very
impressed gents, kudos to the two of you.
On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:45 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
The connector 1.5 spec has dependency on jta-1.0.1B spec. Should
this be changed to jta_1.1? This would mean republishing the connector
spec..
That dep was marked as 'scopeprovided' so that the dep on
jta_1.0.1B won't pollute our
On Jan 22, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Should probably still change the dep to help ensure compatibility.
Ensure compatibility how?
-David
--jason
On Jan 22, 2007, at 8:18 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:45 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
The connector
$
$FastClassByCGLIB$$cd80af20.invoke(generated)
-David
On Jan 22, 2007, at 6:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Ok. All of these issues should be fixed.
-David
On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I was able to deploy the app
Alright, so I figured out how to fix the naming code so that it will
work for business interfaces as well as references from servlets to
ejb for business interfaces. Dain is hacking it in now.
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
The easiest way to reference a 3.0 EJB is by
Dain and I are still hacking away and we just ran into this issue.
It seems the xmlbeans tree from javaee 5 is invalid and needs to be
recreated.
Anytime someone either in a servlet or ejb declares a
PersistenceContext ref of persistence-context-type 'Transaction',
deployment will fail
Ok, so Dain and I have worked all through the night again to try and
kill the last issues we've seen with the integration. We added a few
more tests and such the itests and have hammered away till things
worked. We had to do some ad-hoc surgery in the naming code and more
that will have
FYI all openejb3 snapshots are current as of now, i.e.
20070124.144710, revision 499423.
-David
On Jan 24, 2007, at 6:00 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Ok, so Dain and I have worked all through the night again to try
and kill the last issues we've seen with the integration. We added
a few
On Jan 24, 2007, at 6:00 AM, David Blevins wrote:
We had to do some ad-hoc surgery in the naming code and more that
will have to be merged back to the M2 branch, but the result is a
lot more is working.
Just going to repost this then go to bed (promise :).
Cc'ing Matt as he signed up
On Jan 24, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Tomorrow, I'm going to try to remove the requirement to have a
geronimo-openejb.xml file.
Funny, just tried it out and a geronimo-openejb.xml free deployment
worked perfectly. The code
Welcome, Chris!
-David
On Jan 24, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
In recognition of Chris' contributions to DayTrader (new UI, new
runtime modes) and his sustained set of patches and nagging he has
accepted our offer to join our merry little band of pirates.
Please join me in
On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Limitations:
- Undeploying an ejb module will not remove it's beans. The
server has to be restarted to deploy the same module again.
Ok, I've implemented undeploy and verified it works using the
calculator sample app. I can
fully support EJB 3.0?
:)
-David
-Dave-
David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Limitations:
- Undeploying an ejb module will not remove it's beans. The
server has to be restarted to deploy the same module again.
Ok, I've implemented undeploy
On Jan 26, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Dave Colasurdo wrote:
Thanks... Have made the updates...
Is there anything that should be added to the limitations section?
One of the things I mentioned in another email is that MDBs
.
Remember...this is a milestone and not a full release.
Thanks for David Blevins for being quite the helper tonight in
getting the Release Notes in line and helping out with Open EJB.
As Prasad has noted in a separate thread, EJB@ injection for Jetty
is not working. Matt can confirm, but I
On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi David, I'm having a couple problems with ClassFinder that I hope
you can help me with.
1 -- I've annotated a number of methods in a serlvlet with the
@Resource annotation, but I'm having some trouble discovering them
in the WAR file
On Jan 31, 2007, at 9:31 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Geronimo uses version 1.0 for geronimo-ejb_3.0_spec where as openejb
uses 1.0-M1. Which version should geronimo be using? Should we make
sure that the other version in not brought in by openejb?
I thought we did, just updated it.
+1
-David
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:10 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
This is the formal vote to accept the J2G codebase and bring it
through incubation (see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-
devm=116906208022256w=2)
The final destination is to be part of the geronimo devtool
Going to crank these out now, expect to see some votes for them.
-David
On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
So I don't forget, some commons projects need JDK 1.3 compiled
versions of some of our J2EE 1.4 specs, so at some when I get a
spare cycle I plan to build and put those
All, I've updated the pom of this spec to be compiled with jdk 1.3 as
requested by a project in jakarta commons that needs them.
I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
Release Branch: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
into Geronimo in by
the end of the week.
-dain
On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 19, 2007, at 5:07 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Keep your ejb related plan files intact or a copy of them at
least. I'm going to try and write a conversion tool that will at
least handle trivial
jencks
On Jan 31, 2007, at 7:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
All, I've updated the pom of this spec to be compiled with jdk 1.3
as requested by a project in jakarta commons that needs them.
I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
Release Branch: http://svn.apache.org
On 1/31/07, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All, I've updated the pom of this spec to be compiled with jdk 1.3 as
requested by a project in jakarta commons that needs them.
I hereby propose we release this branch and it's binaries as final.
Release Branch: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
well.
-David
On Jan 31, 2007, at 11:05 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Reposting this info with more details.
So the 10,000 foot perspective is that we are creating a conversion
tool to convert the prior openejb-jar.xml into the new set of
descriptors (geronimo-openejb.xml, new openejb-jar.xml
On Feb 6, 2007, at 5:06 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
--- Jacek Laskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/6/07, anita kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This will introduce cyclic dependency between openejb and geronimo
build. David B. had an alternate solution.
Does it mean that M2 is
support in Servlets?
-David
David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi David, I'm having a couple problems with ClassFinder that I
hope you can help me with.
1 -- I've annotated a number of methods in a serlvlet with the
@Resource annotation, but I'm having
On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Offhand I'd guess this is related to the problem we had with the
openejb container pom recently haven't kept up with whether the
maven guys have done anything about it.
Has everyone voted for
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2796
On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:44 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Offhand I'd guess this is related to the problem we had with the
openejb container pom recently haven't kept up with whether
the maven guys have done anything about it.
Has everyone
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:21 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
On 1/9/07, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:28 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking into integrating CXF
On Feb 6, 2007, at 8:57 PM, Kanchana Welagedara wrote:
Hi Dan
Thanks for your suggestion.We are hoping to complete the docs for
G1.2
and then start working on G2.0.Basically the document migration will
happen based on the content and the structure of v1.1 with needful
enhancements.So by
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
So we've had alot of recent build breaks, IIRC, this is the third
day in a row. In most cases, these breaks are caused by something
that got overlooked, either forgetting to check in files,
publishing snapshots, etc.. Though these issues
On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
jav:ejb-local-ref
jav:ejb-ref-
nameorg.apache.geronimo.samples.calculator.CalculatorServlet/calc/
jav:ejb-ref-name
jav:local-
homeorg.apache.geronimo.samples.slsb.calculator.CalculatorLocal/
jav:local-home
jav:injection-target
The bigger question is do our tcks match because the javaee5 tck
definitely has that field as non-final. Made a comment on that
issue, hopefully Marc can shed some light on it.
-David
On Feb 8, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Hi,
Just saw the issue reported by Marc (from
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
David,
Did you just disable support for Servlet-based WS? If so, why?
No. Are they not working anymore?
-David
Jarek
On 2/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: dblevins
Date: Fri Feb 9 19:52:38 2007
New Revision:
On Feb 9, 2007, at 10:26 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 9, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I have ported the OpenEJB 2 CORBA code and updated it to the
OpenEJB 3 APIs. The code is contained in three new modules
geronimo-corba, geronimo-corba-builder and
hoped that we could centralize
the discovery of annotations in the Deployer class prior to the
createModule phase of deployment, but as David Blevins pointed out
this is almost impossible. So it has to be pushed down into the
installModule phase of deployment after the necessary classloader
On Feb 10, 2007, at 3:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
The new trunk openejb-deployer module requires the openejb module
to be running (started) due to a reference from the deployer gbean
to the OpenEjbSystem gbean.
This means that you need an entirely started geronimo server to
deploy any
On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:04 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Feb 10, 2007, at 6:54 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 10, 2007, at 3:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
The new trunk openejb-deployer module requires the openejb module
to be running (started) due to a reference from the deployer
gbean
had hoped that we could
centralize the discovery of annotations in the Deployer class
prior to the createModule phase of deployment, but as David
Blevins pointed out this is almost impossible. So it has to be
pushed down into the installModule phase of deployment after the
necessary
501 - 600 of 1537 matches
Mail list logo
