Re: Microprofile OpenAPI

The question posed to the MP team does not really match the question posted here, and seems to be a tangental ask. The problem is this line of code [1], and nothing to do with TomEE's behavior; it defaults to JSON even though the spec states it should be YAML. Perhaps a clean solution would be

Re: MP-JWT progress

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:20 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2018-03-19 0:07 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >

Re: MP-JWT progress

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:38 PM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > > Le 18 mars 2018 21:29, "David Blevins" a écrit : > > > > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > > > 1. code will be at geronimo -

Re: MP-JWT progress

I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > If there is no other comment, any objection to move it to > geronimo-jwt-auth? (let say if not we do it on monday european time) > > > Romain

Re: IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

> > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:55 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks, John. > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:43 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>

Re: IP Clearance for Sheldon and Chatterbox

Hey David & co Assuming all files in the donation already have the header as found at [1], then no an SGA wouldn't be required. We've been leaning towards keeping SGAs just when the license and copyrights need to change. It appears the original authors already had the ASF in mind so no need to

Re: [RESULT] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

t; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > &g

Re: Implementing Microprofile JWT

On 2018/02/12 20:42:58, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > > No Andy, as mentionned in the discussion Geronimo hosts the microprofile > > @asf. This is why jwt should probably be

Re: [VOTE] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

Did you tally? I have an internal ASF use case for chatterbox that I'd like to figure out the next steps on. John On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM David Blevins wrote: > My +1 > > ... will tally shortly. > > > -- > David Blevins > http://twitter.com/dblevins >

Re: [VOTE] Accept Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

+1 IF and ONLY IF Sheldon has a class named Cooper. On Sep 8, 2017 5:24 PM, "David Blevins" wrote: > Let’s put this up for a vote. Proposal: > > Should we accept the code donations of Sheldon and Chatterbox as part of > the Apache TomEE project. > > -

Re: [DISCUSS] Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

In all honesty, while the ASF as a whole doesn't have a true strategy, or expect projects to work to benefit each other, I do think in this situation it makes a lot of sense to think about the various communities at the ASF and do some thinking around what makes the most sense for a user of Apache

Re: [DISCUSS] Code donations: Sheldon and Chatterbox

Don't forget to do IP clearance I personally think these are awesome projects. David's been passionate about this stuff for a long time, and I was really hopefully to get these MDB enhancements working on the JMS spec, never happened :-( It would be great to see these at Apache, and hopefully

Re: Site NG on github

bucau> | JavaEE Factory > <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> > > 2017-07-04 17:20 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>: > > > Would be better to request a git repo via https://reporeq.apache.org/ if > > you want a repository. You may

Re: Site NG on github

Would be better to request a git repo via https://reporeq.apache.org/ if you want a repository. You may also want to consider using gitwcsub instead of svnpubsub for the actual generated site. John On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:15 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Ok, let say

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

I think it would be great to start a project in any form for the security spec. John On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:35 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Or a subproject somewhere if we create it from scratch and don't take over > any existing sources where the IP is not 100%

Re: ClassNotFoundException: com.sun.el.ExpressionFactoryImpl in embedded Arquillian container

Don't forget, TomEe will ship Geronimo jars. If you reference Javax.el you'll get duplicates On Aug 23, 2016 17:25, "Alex Soto" wrote: > Then now I have no idea, it seems emedded instance does not contain the > javax.el interpreter. Can you try using remote artifacts? > > El

Re: Exposing RESTful web services from WEB-INF/lib

Looks like he has a master branch where that works properly. John On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM Alex Soto wrote: > At mobile now but have you tried adding classes in war project and see if > they work and then extract to jar? > > El 16 jul. 2016 4:34 p. m., "Ivan St.

Re: [VOTE] Apache TomEE 7.0.0

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:40 PM David Blevins wrote: > > > On May 19, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > > > 2016-05-20 1:23 GMT+02:00 David Blevins : > > > >> Also, we’ve historically done a preview run

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

on their website. validator is asl > > AFAIK cause of JCP but orm is not. Did you find another source? > > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > On 2 May 2016 at 13:48, Roberto Cortez <radcor...@yahoo.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > >

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

you for the Java EE 7 samples > checkup > > :) > > > > It appears we fail 35% of the JAX-RS 2.0 tests. Do we know what is > > preventing us from passing those tests? > > > > > > -- > > David Blevins > > http://twitter.com/dblevins > > http://www.tomitribe.com

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

Sorry for so many posts :-) TomEE Plus 7.0.0-M3 passes 238/338 tests in the suite. John On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests, > you can see the output in this g

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

I ended up changing the version and updating the code. I ran the tests, you can see the output in this gist: https://gist.github.com/johnament/2443e79836605a913159b14295681536 TomEE Plus fails at about 100 tests. John On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:10 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>

Re: 7.0.0 release vote

If it helps any, I can push up the latest TomEE version to the TomEE profile: https://github.com/javaee-samples/javaee7-samples/blob/master/pom.xml#L690 John On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:07 PM David Blevins wrote: > In terms of statements of compliance, which of these Java

Re: Next release 7.1?

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:59 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 25 avr. 2016 00:36, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > > > > It doesn't make sense to jump to a 7.1 immediately without even releasing > a > > 7

Re: Next release 7.1?

It doesn't make sense to jump to a 7.1 immediately without even releasing a 7.0. Just confusing from a semantic versioning standpoint. Given the current status of the TCK & ASF, I wonder if waiting for it and claiming EE 7 compatibility at a later date would make more sense. So maybe along what

Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter

gt; > > > Local protocol allows nicer start so very tempted to keep it like that. > > Servlet protocol has few bugs/issues and is not what you target by > default > > with embedded adapters IMO. > > Le 4 oct. 2015 01:25, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@a

Re: Protocol of Arquillian Embedded Adapter

Hey Alex, To be honest, I find the protocol section of arquillian the most confusing for new users to pick up. Why should they care what the protocol transferring the test data is using? I remember at the beginning, AS7 had a JMX protocol. This made tons of sense, since it didn't impact the

Re: [discuss] drop drop-in-war

David, On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:29 PM David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote: What do people think about dropping the drop-in-war feature in .next? It has had two use cases: - allow users to use their own tomcat version and just add TomEE - allow users to use TomEE in situations

Re: git workflow?

I personally like the idea of using gitflow, makes the project look more stable and quality focused. Allows you to stay in a shape of ready to tackle major issues immediately. Plus it makes contributions easier to manage. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Andy Gumbrecht agumbre...@tomitribe.com

Re: Github pull requests?

Here's hoping that one day the TomEE moves to Git. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Tommy Tynjä to...@diabol.se wrote: Your pull request will most likely be ignored. I've tried that approach as well but since TomEE has not moved over from svn to git, it doesn't make sense yet. I've used the