[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1427?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12646261#action_12646261
]
Martin Ritchie commented on QPID-1427:
--
Attached log file is wrong. Test failure was
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1427?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12646242#action_12646242
]
Martin Ritchie commented on QPID-1427:
--
This failure to receive message 0 is due to the
Hi Paul, thanks for reply.No,basically I don't know if I need a servlet
engine.
This idea cames up to my mind because I saw that the Apache Muse is building
a .war as deliverable and therefore in order to use it I need a servlet
container.
Otherwise I don't know how to install the muse built WS-DM
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1322?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-1322:
-
Attachment:
Hi Arnaud, we thought the same thing...just a moment please read the
following :
I was just having a look to apache muse and it seems that they have
something we need.The problem is that the final artifacts is something
deployable on a web serverbut at this point I think it's the only
Andrea
Axis2 has a built in HTTP server, including a high-performance NIO
based one, so you don't need a servlet container if you don't want
one. Alternatively, Jetty is small and embeddable.
Paul
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Andrea Gazzarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Arnaud, we thought
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1445?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jonathan Robie updated QPID-1445:
-
Attachment: 2008.11.10-9.42.diff
Modified C++ examples - comments, exchange configurability,
Modified C++ examples - comments, exchange configurability, XML Exchange naming
Key: QPID-1445
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1445
Project: Qpid
Hi Andrea,
Would it be possible to do 2) then 1) ? I.E. could we extend 2) so to achieve
1)?
Arnaud
- Andrea Gazzarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Considering that final goal of QMan is to expose remote broker(s)
management through a standard and language-independent interface,
Memory leak in qmf agent
Key: QPID-1446
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1446
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
Components: C++ Broker, Qpid Managment Framework
Affects Versions: M4
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1446?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ted Ross resolved QPID-1446.
Resolution: Fixed
Memory leak in qmf agent
Key: QPID-1446
Dan,
Thank you very much for the positive analysis. We indeed have come a long
way in terms of diversity since we last attempted graduation.
As for the last release, it was delayed a bit due to key people being on
vacation (unavoidable as we were in the middle of the most popular vacation
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1445?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Carl Trieloff closed QPID-1445.
---
Resolution: Fixed
patch applied Committed revision 712699
Modified C++ examples - comments,
I'll just go on record and say that I think Qpid has come a long way since the
last attempt and I appreciate the efforts. From what I can tell, since
the last vote:
1) You have voted in several people independent of JPMC and RedHat. That's
very good.
2) The weekly concall thing has
2008/11/10 Andrea Gazzarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Robert, you're right : the second option is for sure the most flexible.
The drawback is that you must assemble / write all the components from
scratch while if you write a JEE component it's supposed that the managed
environment will take care
Broker does not handle with slow consumers effectively
--
Key: QPID-1447
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1447
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Components:
Hi all,
Following a thread on qpid-user, I have created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1447 to list the two issues
identified. This is specifically for the Java broker; I think the C++
broker is better but still needs some enhancement to support
disconnecting slow consumers (typically
Robert Greig wrote:
2008/11/10 Andrea Gazzarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Robert, you're right : the second option is for sure the most flexible.
The drawback is that you must assemble / write all the components from
scratch while if you write a JEE component it's supposed that the managed
Management APIs and CLI tools are not unicode safe
--
Key: QPID-1448
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1448
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Python Client,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1447?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12646412#action_12646412
]
Aidan Skinner commented on QPID-1447:
-
See
C++ broker on Windows with --mgmt-enable no triggers crash setting up client
Key: QPID-1449
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1449
Project: Qpid
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Robert Greig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MINA issue is analogous to the fast producer issue we have known
about for a long time. Martin, I thought this had been fixed ages ago
but I can't find the Jira. Do you know the status of that issue?
This is basically
Based on some feedback, here is the updated resolution. If there
is no more feedback, I will start a vote in a day or two
regards
Carl.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
interests of the
23 matches
Mail list logo
