I have fixed and cleaned up the project.properties files in geronimo to
properly build the eclipse project files and have the xmlbeans
directories properly placed. Basically, the
maven.eclipse.classpath.include needs a ${basedir} prefixed to the
declared directory.
I opened GERONIMO-833 for
Sorry, what's the difference between TranQL 1.0 and 1.1? Is 1.0
targeted to Geroniom M4 or Geronimo 1.0?
Thanks,
Aaron
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
...
This will require an update to use OpenEJB HEAD (2.0-SNAPSHOT) and
TranQL HEAD (1.1-SNAPSHOT)
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Sorry, what's the difference between TranQL 1.0 and 1.1? Is 1.0
targeted to Geroniom M4 or Geronimo 1.0?
Neither - Geronimo can use whichever version it chooses.
This change means that 1.1 has a default byte[] binding that stores the
data directly in the database
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Neither - Geronimo can use whichever version it chooses.
Um, OK, then I guess Geronimo needs some more information to
decide which to use. What's the plan for testing and finalizing TranQL
v1.0? When do you expect that and when do you expect
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Neither - Geronimo can use whichever version it chooses.
Um, OK, then I guess Geronimo needs some more information to
decide which to use. What's the plan for testing and finalizing TranQL
v1.0?
1.0 is basically
I've reviewed the original discussion on this topic. I'm rather
appalled that dain appears to regard this discussion as resulting in a
technical -1 forcing removal of the current gbean name code. I would
regard this attitude as an attempt to divide the geronimo community in
an extremely
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-833?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-833:
-
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: David Jencks
Applied
Eclipse location for XMLBeans updated in project.properties
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-834?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-834:
-
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: David Jencks
applied
Add a maven.eclipse.classpath.include to the project.properties for TRANQL
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-832?page=all ]
Gianny Damour reassigned GERONIMO-832:
--
Assign To: Gianny Damour
Calling isUserInRole from JSP not mapped to a Servlet
-
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-832?page=all ]
Gianny Damour closed GERONIMO-832:
--
Fix Version: 1.0-M5
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed in 226718.
Modified:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I've reviewed the original discussion on this topic. I'm rather
appalled that dain appears to regard this discussion as resulting
in a technical -1 forcing removal of the current gbean name code.
I would regard this attitude as an attempt
I don't fully understand the issue, but... I think we need to
address the -1 by either changing the offending code or convincing Dain
that he should withdraw the -1. I don't think it's a very useful path to
allow one group of people to vote to ignore the -1 from another person in
order
On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:56 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I don't fully understand the issue, but... I think we need to
address the -1 by either changing the offending code or convincing
Dain
that he should withdraw the -1. I don't think it's a very useful
path to
allow one group of people to
Make clean-repo delete based on file name/version
-
Key: GERONIMO-835
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-835
Project: Geronimo
Type: Improvement
Components: buildsystem
Versions: 1.0-M3, 1.0-M4
On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I've reviewed the original discussion on this topic. I'm rather
appalled that dain appears to regard this discussion as resulting in
a technical -1 forcing removal of the current gbean name
Ok. I just got off a plane and started reading this thread. I'm a
bit fog-headed after traveling across the country on equipment that
probably could be passed by a kite (hello? American Airlines? A
737 is a glorified regional jet, and it's time to retire the
MD-80s...), but was doing
On Aug 1, 2005, at 12:41 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I've reviewed the original discussion on this topic. I'm rather
appalled that dain appears to regard this discussion as resulting
in a
17 matches
Mail list logo
