Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/commit/3ea4287d483f3ce275be75bf50ac1728527d697a#commitcomment-17117533
In
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/ssl/SimpleSslTransportWrapper.java:
In
proton-j/src/main
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/73#issuecomment-209455781
I have made a change that should resolve this. Its a little different than
your proposal to both resolve an issue with it (unlikely but possible infinite
loop
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/71#issuecomment-198597691
HI Zoltan,
Some more replies (inline) to your replies before I disappear for the week
:)
On 18 March 2016 at 21:14, Zoltan Varga <notific
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/71#issuecomment-198459041
Hi Zoltan,
Sorry for the delay, I have finally given this a look, albeit a relatively
quick one. I havenât spent as long looking at it as I might like
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/65#issuecomment-184320477
I hadn't got round to looking at this closely but was likely just going to
apply it if nothing obvious came up, and probably wouldnt have considered the
above
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/58#issuecomment-174484938
As it won't cause any harm I've pushed a change (essentially yours with the
whitespace fixed) for this via PROTON-1105 to close out the PR, but as
mentioned if you
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/53#issuecomment-172958834
I have replied to your thread on the mailing list, please keep general
discussion there.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/53#issuecomment-172938973
Hi Sreeram,
As you might have already seen from the JIRA update or commit just now, I
have made a further update here to go back to using an int to carry
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/54#issuecomment-171998673
The other sections don't exist on the message unless something is done to
create them (they are all optional) so they wont be encoded in that case. I
added a test
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/58#issuecomment-172036582
Hi Sreeram,
Do you actually mean that there was an NPE inside EventImpl as the title
suggests? Given usage of the getTransport() inside EventImpl method
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/35#issuecomment-172041707
Can we close this old PR, doesnt seem like its being used anymore?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/54#issuecomment-171666793
Hi Sreeram
Expanding the Message[Impl] to support multiple body sections is something
that would be good to see done, but isn't something I've had time
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/53#issuecomment-171342712
Hi Sreeram,
I have made some changes that should let you do what you want. They change
the API a little by usling a long to make it more intuitive
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/52#issuecomment-166376050
Hi Sreeram,
I have committed changes to implement support for both setting the local
properties to be sent to the peer and inspecting the remote properties
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/52#issuecomment-166302294
Thanks Andrew. I was planning to get to this once the final bits for the
Proton 0.11.1 release are out the way.
I think it needs adjustment for naming
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36521660
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/EventType.java ---
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+/*
+ *
+ * Licensed to the Apache
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#issuecomment-128714379
Hi Bozo, sorry for the delay getting back to you, I was a bit
tunnel-visioned trying (and failing :/) to get 0.10 out the door this week.
I like the recent
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36523726
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/CollectorImpl.java ---
@@ -57,9 +58,16 @@ public void pop
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36177254
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/BuiltinEventTypeImpl.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+package
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36177270
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/EventExtensibilityTest.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+package
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36179723
--- Diff: proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/Event.java
---
@@ -80,15 +83,46 @@
SELECTABLE_WRITABLE
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36180425
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/CollectorImpl.java ---
@@ -57,9 +58,13 @@ public void pop
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36173790
--- Diff: proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/Record.java
---
@@ -29,6 +29,10 @@
public interface Record
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36179361
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/test/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/EventExtensibilityTest.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,381 @@
+package
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36173016
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/BuiltinHandler.java ---
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+/*
+ *
+ * Licensed to the Apache
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36174376
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/EventImpl.java ---
@@ -68,12 +69,19 @@ void clear
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#discussion_r36174549
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/EventImpl.java ---
@@ -217,6 +101,19 @@ public void dispatch(Handler handler
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/48#issuecomment-127559169
I've commented on the code, but one final random thought:
Could we use generics to enforce the correct type of handler is supplied
for dispatch and avoid
GitHub user gemmellr opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/42
PROTON-936 session outgoing window handling
As discussed on the mailing lists [1], proton currently sets the outgoing
window to 0 in most cases (except when using Messenger), but then sends
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/41#issuecomment-118378670
Looks good to me.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/29#discussion_r29843571
--- Diff:
proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/engine/impl/EventImpl.java ---
@@ -157,12 +165,51 @@ public void dispatch(Handler handler
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/2#issuecomment-99931684
The JIRA is marked complete, but none of the commits included the message
to auto close the PR. Can you close it @cliffjansen?
---
If your project is set up
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/28#issuecomment-99423851
A little more info:most of the changes are to ensure the dir within the tar
matches the version, in case the tag name does not (e.g a proposed final RC
being voted
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/21#issuecomment-94736378
Just a note to say, the new test will currently fail against proton-c just
now, but Gordons fix from PROTON-850 resolves that. I mentioned this to him and
he
GitHub user gemmellr opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/20
PROTON-848-and-849: stop leaking the transport state
Stops leaking the transport state by removing the maps storing the
TransportSession or TransportLink objects, instead using the references
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/20#issuecomment-94533325
@rhs can you take a look please? Mainly at the channel/handle process
updates, the actual leak prevention wasnt that interesting in the end.
---
If your project
GitHub user gemmellr opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/21
PROTON-853: stop erroneous attach being sent
The changes for PROTON 154 commit 7d3063e7c488c97b9bad61e862d54b2b11dbc3d5
in 0.9 lead to situations where the transport will decide to send a new
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/14#issuecomment-87675670
As the archive has already been distributed via the mirror system, I think
updating the current named files would likely be considered bad form at this
point. I'm
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/13#issuecomment-81751109
Looks good to me. We should request for inclusion in 0.9 if there is an RC3
to pick up aconways SSL change.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/10#issuecomment-77209715
I had a chat with Rob and he thought the change looked ok. Could you make a
new JIRA though and merge it against that, since PROTON-576 was already release
in 0.8
GitHub user gemmellr opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/9
PROTON-830: trivial README change, testing GitHub integration
As per the subject.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gemmellr
Github user gemmellr commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/9#issuecomment-76155471
Testing reply via GitHub
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
42 matches
Mail list logo
