ant elder wrote:
Last call for any input on what i'll be submitting tomorrow:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/June+2008
...ant
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:59 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to submit our ASF board report by next Monday. I've created a
Simon Laws wrote:
Hi Luciano
I'd like to keep a pretty close watch on how we change the branch this time
so I would like all changes to be backed up with a JIRA even for
committers. As for what changes we allow. I think we'll assume we are
functionally complete when we cut the branch and
ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Lou Amodeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a plan for Tuscany to support Axis2 1.4?
Axis2 1.4 and the associated wss4j and rampart releases for 1.4 are all
out and
Simon Nash wrote:
Actually this isn't quite what I was saying. (Sorry that I wasn't clear.)
I'm talking about the lowest level components that we distribute as
binaries, not about larger groupings that are created from these components
to provide convenient aggregations of functionality. These
Folks,
I'll chip in with one observation here.
If Tuscany itself allows the use of a range of versions of some 3rd party library, then in principle
given that we attempt a form of test driven development, we should be testing with ALL of the
versions of that 3rd party library.
If we don't
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
Yes, stands a chance of working in most situations, where most is the
key word. We will work in all situations where applications dont install
different versions of Tuscany's 3rd party libs. Once we have an application
and Tuscany within one OSGi runtime with multiple
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
On 6/12/08, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is true. But how narrow should the range be? SpringSource assumes
compatibility at major version. Should we assume minor version? Or should we
restrict to revision? Are we saying that we work with 1.3.0, so we would
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I just make the protected field injectable. :-)
Thanks,
Raymond
Folks,
Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, you should be able to derive a test to check that the
property declaration from the componentType file IS being used, by setting a default value for the
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I see Vamsi uses the following strategy to disable failing unit test cases.
@Test
@Ignore(TUSCANY-) // Ignore the test case due to JIRA TUSCANY-
public void testMySrtuff() {
}
I think it's a very good practice we should follow to maintain a clean
build while
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'd like to discuss the following: What distro Zips are we building
and what do they contain?
I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide:
- smaller packages
- easier for people to find what they need
I was thinking
ant elder wrote:
The Tuscany PMC has voted for Scott Kurz to become a Tuscany committer.
Welcome Scott!
...ant
Congratulations and welcome, Scott.
I look forward to working with you.
Yours, Mike.
+1 to removing these modules.
Yours, Mike.
Simon Laws wrote:
Hi All
Now that the new domain manager app is starting to settle down a bit I'd
like to disable the unused domain modules from the main build. They are...
modules/domain
modules/domain-api
modules/domain-xml
modules/node
Ramkumar,
What values of -Xmx and -Xms are you running Java with?
I've tweaked mine to:
MAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx1024M
...without this Out-of-Memory is a common experience
Yours, Mike.
Ramkumar R wrote:
I see a OutOfMemoryError in itest/osgi-implementation conversation
testcases, and a serious
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
CXF 2.1 uses Spring 2.0.8, while our implementation-spring module uses
2.0.6. I'd like to test and change our Spring integration to use 2.0.8
as well. If there's no objection (and if it works) I'll make that change
in the next few days.
Sebastien,
I'll be happy
Simon Laws wrote:
It's been a little while now since we did our 1.2 release. Since then there
has been lots of activity and of course we have graduated. It feels like the
right time to do a 1.3 release. Looking back at the mail list over the last
couple of months there are quite a few candidates
Mark,
Welcome to Tuscany. It is great news that Red Hat is getting involved with
Tuscany.
I very much look forward to working with you all in the coming months.
Yours, Mike.
Mark Little wrote:
Hi, I just wanted to let people know officially that people from Red
Hat/JBoss will be
Ant,
+1 in general - by why not simply choose a number, rather than x?
- the problem with x is what comes next?
Yours, Mike.
ant elder wrote:
Lots of different views so far on this thread, better than no one replying
:) I'm tempted to go with 1.x-SNAPSHOT as I think from whats been said
why this is happening, there's no reason
why a lock would get stuck on the OpenJPA sequence table. I have to dig
deeper but it's getting late, I'll try to find more time during the week-end
or Monday.
Cheers,
Matthieu
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Simon,
I did an SVN update and build of Tuscany earlier this afternoon and I did not
see this failure.
The code currently checked in to the Tuscany SVN was fixed up to avoid the error listed by Luciano
and certainly seems to work for me.
Is anyone else seeing the same problem that Simon is
Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthieu,
First - many thanks for your hard work on this.
I take no pleasure in saying this, but I am glad that the DB problem was
ODE's problem rather than Tuscany's - it looks like you are far more
think the usage of the api should be fine, but
connecting to actual google services would require a google account
and also that the user has accepted those license terms.
Well, this is just how I understood. Any other Thoughts ?
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Luciano Resende wrote:
Hey Mike
What are your concerns with regards to license ? Looking at [1], it
looks like the GData Java Client is Apache License 2.
[1] http://code.google.com/p/gdata-java-client/
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Douglas Leite
Simon Laws wrote:
Hi Mike
Sticking a pin in the specs it does say what you are saying. I was thinking
must support as opposed to must use on the service side. Within an SCA
domain in Tuscany I believe that the binding matching code will fail to
match soap.1_1 and soap.1_2 intents. Crossing the
Jean-Sebastien,
What happens to the model object that is being constructed when this error
occurs?
I'm assuming this is a reference or a wire of some kind?
Yours, Mike.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I'm changing the throw new IncompatibleInterfaceContractException()
statements in the
ant elder wrote:
Looks like this is a jdk issue, works ok with IBM JDK5 but always fails for
me with the Sun JDK.
...ant
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:32 AM, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a fresh check out I'm
Folks,
Thinking about this further, we should I think come up with a common and consistent model for the
handling of problems found during model processing.
Let me make a proposal or two that folk can throw rocks at if they please:
- Model processor code should NEVER throw an exception that
Gilbert Kwan wrote:
I defined a service requires soap.1_2
component name=BComponentSOAP12
implementation.java class=BServiceSOAP12Impl/
service name=BServiceSOAP12
interface.java interface=BServiceSOAP12/
binding.ws requires=soap.1_2/
/service
/component
and a
ant elder wrote:
The Tuscany PMC has voted for Vamsavardhana Reddy to become a Tuscany
committer.
Congratulations and welcome!
...ant
Welcome Vamsi!
Yours, Mike.
Simon Laws wrote:
Should we really be restricting the behavior of the service side SOAP stack?
If your intent is to support 1_2 does that mean we outlaw 1_1 if the SOAP
stack happens to be able to make sense of it?
Simon
Simon,
This all depends on what you think is meant when the intent
Douglas Leite wrote:
After analyzing the Google Data API and the code of binding-atom,
binding-atom-abdera, and binding-feed, I propose an approach to start the
development of the GData biding.
I propose creating a new type of binding: biding-gdata. Similarly as
binding-atom-abdera, that
Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I've run into problems with the SCA BPEL implementation and the way it
interacts with the ODE engine - and I need help from some ODE experts,
please.
OK, the SCA code is using the ODE engine
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I took a look at binding-corba/.../CorbaServiceBindingProvider in trunk.
At the moment the ORB setup is in the start method of the provider (and
there's no cleanup in the stop method). I'm not quite sure how this is
going to work with multiple services sharing
Folks,
I agree with the direction that this discussion is taking.
It seems right to add the OSGi metatdata to the 3rd party JARs.
Yours, Mike.
Graham Charters wrote:
FWIW, I agree with Sebastien and Rajini. I don't believe it's a
coincidence that both SpringSource and ServiceMix went the
Simon Nash wrote:
I was not expecting that there would be something already out there
that we could use as is. I was hoping that we could collaborate
with other projects with similar needs to produce an agreed set of
bundles that we could all share. This has to be better for the users
than
the difference in the two cases? Any assistance gratefully
received.
Is it perhaps due to differences in the compilation of the process? Or is the process treated in
some very different way when it is transient?
Yours, Mike Edwards.
-
Relevant WSDL
Ramkumar,
Is this such a wise move??
What is the point of allowing processing to continue if the model is actually
broken in some way?
I would agree that there may be some exceptions that can be removed and replaced by the logging of
messages, but is it really wise to allow the creation of a
,
Raymond
--
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:12 PM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: BPEL Implementation: Latest changes mean no need for
deploy.xml !!
Mike Edwards wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
Very
Folks,
I've just deployed some changes to SVN for the BPEL implementation that remove the need to supply a
deploy.xml file alongside your BPEL process script.
So now, all you need is your BPEL process script, the related WSDL - and the composite file that
defines the SCA component(s) - and
Luciano Resende wrote:
Very good news Mike !!! I hope to start working on the db issues as
soon as I get some free cycles.
Luciano,
There is something that you might be able to help me with right away.
I am running into intermittent problems with transactions in the registration of a BPEL
.
Yours, Mike.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
Luciano Resende wrote:
Very good news Mike !!! I hope to start working on the db issues as
soon as I get some free cycles.
Luciano,
There is something that you might be able to help me with right away.
I am running
Raymond Feng wrote:
Is there a way to tell if WS-Security is required for a WS binding? I
guess we need to dig into the policy stuff. We then probably need to
pass a flag down to the TuscanyAxisConfigurator so that it can decide if
rampart should be activated.
Thanks,
Raymond
Strictly
Matthieu Riou wrote:
What mike says. I should just add that picking the right process version
depending on what's already executing is handled by the runtime. The only
thing that it will need is to know what is the definition for all the
process versions that are still around (haven't been
Matthieu Riou wrote:
Special order 7B, Establish the Apache Tuscany Project, was approved by
Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
Congratulations guys!
Matthieu
Great news everyone!!
Thanks to everyone for a lot of hard work and dedication.
I think that the next year will be the year
ant elder wrote:
Do we really need these as they are today? Currently they contain copies of
various Axis2 classes updated for Tuscany so its not a completely trivial
upgrade to move to Axis2 1.4 and while looking at that I wondered what we
really want them for.
The Java2WSDL tool doesn't look
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2328?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12598229#action_12598229
]
Mike Edwards commented on TUSCANY-2328:
---
Ashwini,
Thanks for catching this one
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2328?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Edwards reassigned TUSCANY-2328:
-
Assignee: Mike Edwards
equals method is not overridden and hashcode generated
Luciano Resende wrote:
So, in the case where we replace the ODE Process Store module with one
implemented by Tuscany, is this new module going to be responsible for
handling all the versioning and matching a running process instance
with the right BPEL process version ?
Also, can the modules
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2328?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Edwards resolved TUSCANY-2328.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix committed in 658449.
Changed BPELImplementationProcessor to compare
ant elder wrote:
i'm happy to wait till ... I've got things more working
...ant
Ant,
Yes - I'm happy for you to beaver away getting it ready, but keep off general release until it does
work OK ;-)
Yours, Mike.
, the SCA runtime has all the information contained in the deploy.xml file,
but in another form. It would be great to relieve the developers from the need to create this file.
Yours, Mike Edwards
Apache Tuscany team.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2322?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Edwards resolved TUSCANY-2322.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed by a change to the marshall method of the BPELExtensionHandler
Folks,
I've just committed some changes to the implementation-bpel and implementatio-bpel-ode code in trunk
which fix some issues relating to exposing BPEL processes using Web services (and other remote
protocols).
These changes have an impact on the content of the deploy.xml file that is
Simon Nash wrote:
I am surprised to hear that. I would expect a different interface
object to be created for each different interface element appearing
in the SCDL.
Hmm, my experience recently with the BPEL code shows that the handling of interfaces within Tuscany
is not so clean.
I'll
For my 1 cent on this point.
The BPEL code is still raw at this stage and I feel it could do with a few more tweaks before it is
really ready for prime time - I certainly still have a lot of trouble getting it to work - and I'm
working on it!!
Yours, Mike.
Luciano Resende wrote:
In the
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
snip
For 1, 2, 3 and 5, I think it is a good idea to introduce a new interface
definition as a top level element in SCDLs. This new interface definition
could use any existing interface definition and add additional semantics.
For example, something like
interface.xxx
Graham Charters wrote:
Hi,
I've been working on a small sample to act as an OSGi sniff test for
Tuscany running in OSGi. It's basically a cut-down version of what
Rajini has done in itest/osgi-tuscany and only runs the most basic
Calculator sample. I still have some work to do to exclude all
Folks,
Trying to run a build of trunk at the moment and I am getting test failures in tutorial\store-test -
is anyone else seeing these?
The failure I'm getting is
SEVERE: SCA Node could not be created
java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
at
Mark Combellack wrote:
Hi Mike,
I've just done a partial branch build and did not see the error you were
having. I did the following:
svn up modules tutorial
cd modules
mvn clean install
cd tutorial
mvn clean install
I did not see any errors reported.
ant elder wrote:
I had a build going fine this morning but updated after you posted this and
now I also get a HTTP 500 failure but in tutorial\catalog-mediation.
...ant
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ant,
Thanks for letting us know that you're
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12596708#action_12596708
]
Mike Edwards commented on TUSCANY-2316:
---
Scott,
The ClassCastExceptions occur
Ashwini Kumar Jeksani wrote:
Hi,
Most of my deployment issues were resolved after I changed to the latest
release of Tuscany (version 1.2).
Now the code is working fine without errors but I am unable to invoke a
webservice
Nothing is happening beyond this..
[java] Invoking a partner
Lou Amodeo wrote:
Is there a plan for Tuscany to support Axis2 1.4?
Lou,
Any particular goodies that we can expect to get by moving up to Axis 1.4?
Yours, Mike.
Scott Kurz wrote:
Mike,
Just trying to use this issue to test/expand my own understanding of the
Tuscany databinding framework.
You're saying there's a problem with setting (resetting) the Axiom DB on the
IC obtained from the WebServiceBindingImpl.I'm just trying to understand
what the
Scott Kurz wrote:
Oh, I see what I was confused about.
The WebServiceBindingImpl object is not going to have an IC in your case in
which you simply declare an empty element:
binding.ws/
It is in fact, going to set the IC from the component ref/srvc IC.For
some reason I had it in my had
ant elder wrote:
There hasn't been any reminders sent out yet but according to the schedule
today is when our Incubator report is due. I've made a rough start, feel
free update: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2008
...ant
Ant,
Looks good.
If more conference names will help, you can
Luciano Resende wrote:
After lots of issues, I can now successfully expose a BPEL component
using the Tuscany WS Binding.
Let me try to summarize the issues I found, and how I fixed and/or
workarounded them:
- TUSCANY-2316 - The ws-binding was overriding the databinding
definition on the
Folks,
1) The ODE Database
Luciano has suggested we find a way of dealing with the database required by the ODE BPEL processor
- big +1 to that since if you mess up the database configuration it is the devil's own business to
get it fixed. (Speaking from sorry experience.) One
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2322?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12596968#action_12596968
]
Mike Edwards commented on TUSCANY-2322:
---
Well, I know exactly how I can fix
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Java SCA Axis Binding Extension
Affects Versions: Java-SCA-1.2
Environment: - any -
Reporter: Mike Edwards
Assignee: Mike Edwards
Fix For: Java-SCA-Next
Attachments
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Edwards updated TUSCANY-2316:
--
Attachment: sample-helloworld-bpel-ws.zip
Sample BPEL application which exposes the BPEL
Raymond Feng wrote:
snip
There is one more player: binding. The remote interaction is controlled
by the binding protocol. When the source and target components are
running under different context (such as classloader), the binding
provider should be responsible to make sure the data are
Folks,
While trying to run the latest code within Eclipse - and failing (!) - I noted something curious
about the node2-launcher module.
I has no dependencies on any other module within Tuscany.
Given that it has the task of bootstrapping Tuscany, I found this surprising,
to say the least.
Raymond Feng wrote:
+1 on what Mike said.
We have been trying to avoid the implementation (physical) IC assuming
the componentType IC would be the same as the implementation IC. Taking
java component as an example, this is basically to define how a class
implements an interface in the SCA
at apache dot org
* Jean-Sebastien Delfino jsdelfino at apache dot org
* kelvin goodson kelvingoodson at apache dot org
* Luciano Resende lresende at apache dot org
* Mark Combellack mcombellack at apache dot org
* Matthieu Riou mriou at apache dot org
* Mike Edwards edwardsmj
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Oscar Castaneda wrote:
1. Downloaded the modified code from [1] and installed as shown below:
svn checkout https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/
cd mobile-android
If there's no objection from others, I'd be happy to see this code move
with information from a component type file. Proper merging would
scavenge additional information only from the componentType file.
Yours, Mike.
Dave
- Original Message - From: Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:09 AM
Subject: Re
ant elder wrote:
Last call, unless anyone says otherwise i'll be restarting this vote
tomorrow morning using the contents of the wiki page:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Draft+TLP+Resolution
...ant
OK by me, Ant
Yours, Mike.
scabooz wrote:
Ok, that's a good start. What did you mean by ignored. I would have
expected that the WSDL was available in the logical in-memory object
model so that interceptors, binding impls, etc would be able to see what
was in the cT side file.
Dave
Dave,
That is exactly what I
Folks,
This is another error which adds to the heap of reasons why I hate Maven - Maven is one of the
worst systems I have ever dealt with when things go wrong.
- it's a dependency problem - dependencies of the velocity package, which I believe is brought in by
one of the Maven plugins
-
Folks,
I'll take a look at this - this is new code I checked in yesterday - built OK
for me.
Yours, Mike.
Simon Laws wrote:
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just did a full checkout and build. The build failed in the
helloworld-bpel sample with the
Scott,
The interpretation here depends on your take on componentType files.
My take has *ALWAYS* been that componentType files are meant to express something about the
implementation rather than express some design constraints. Indeed, the separate concept of
constraining type was invented
?
Yours, puzzled, Mike.
PS The reason this never caused a problem before is that I believe that NO-ONE was using the import
statement !! The componentType file was overriding everything, including this.
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I'll take a look at this - this is new code I checked in yesterday
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
The problem seems to be with the testcase itself, in my opinion, but
before I go and hack the testcase, I'm posting to the list to see if
anyone knows why the sample is the way it is.
Look at the BPEL process - helloworld.bpel
It contains an import for the WSDL
OK,
I committed fixes to the BPEL Sample, iTest and implementation code to fix the problems that folks
found in the build.
Sorry that I did not spot all these before I made the previous commit.
Yours, Mike.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Are you guys still making changes to the BPEL code?
I'd like to be able to work with BPEL components in the domain without
having to boot the whole runtime. I'd like to do it sometime later this
week but for that to work I'll need to split implementation-bpel in
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Are you guys still making changes to the BPEL code?
I'd like to be able to work with BPEL components in the domain without
having to boot the whole runtime. I'd like to do it sometime later this
week but for that to work I'll need to split implementation-bpel in
Luciano Resende wrote:
Cool Mike, this is very good improvement for the bpel impl...
BTW, could you please check if you have committed one of the new model
classes : BPELPartnerLinkTypeExt
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Mike Edwards
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luciano,
The class
Simon Laws wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Rajini Sivaram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My 2c:
+1 to promote OSGi to a first class Tuscany runtime environment
+1 for an OSGi continuum build (thinking about a build profile
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2278?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Edwards resolved TUSCANY-2278.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fixed by an update to AtomBindingUtil in revision 652361
Atom Binding
- Mark Combellack mcombellack at apache dot org
- Matthieu Riou mriou at apache dot org
- Mike Edwards edwardsmj at apache dot org
- Paul Fremantle pzf at apache dot org
- Pete Robbins robbinspg at apache dot org
- Raymond Feng rfeng at apache dot org
- Simon Laws slaws at apache
Components: Java SCA ATOM Binding Extension
Affects Versions: Java-SCA-1.2
Environment: All
Reporter: Mike Edwards
Priority: Minor
Fix For: Java-SCA-Next
If a PUT operation is made using the Atom binding, the ID parameter for the
data
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2278?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Edwards reassigned TUSCANY-2278:
-
Assignee: Mike Edwards
Atom Binding Extension does not support PUT operations
Ashwini Kumar Jeksani wrote:
Hi,
Does Tuscany support SCA Extentions to WS-BPEL? If it doesn't then I guess we
could look into that one as well.
Thanks Regards
Ashwini Kumar Jeksani
Ashwini,
Which extensions are thinking about?
Currently I am working on code that scans the BPEL process
Luciano Resende wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC and Incubator PMC have voted for Mario Antollini to
become a Tuscany committer.
Please spend sometime to get familiar with Apache developer's pages
[1], the Apache Incubator site [2] and to the Incubator Committers
Guide [3]. Also, could you please submit
ant elder wrote:
These are all the additional dependencies brought in with the Tuscany
implementation.bpel extension, are any of them obviously not necessary?
activeio-2.0-r118.jar
axion-1.0-M3-dev.jar
backport-util-concurrent-3.0.jar
common-2.2.3.jar
commons-codec-1.3.jar
Wojtek Janiszewski wrote:
Hi all,
first of all I'd like to thank you for your support and encouragement
during GSoC student approval process (and for votes of course:))!
I'll do my best to end this task with success.
I'd like to wish more luck for those whose weren't accepted.
Congratulations
Luciano Resende wrote:
Now that we are making more progress with the SCA BPEL integration
and have figured out how to make References to work, let's discuss
what could be the next steps on this area. Below are couple examples
of what we could do next
- WS-BPEL Process Introspection : Currently
Simon Nash wrote:
I committed r651426 which should provide usable support for
services and references that use Java interfaces containing JAX-WS
annotations without any WSDL files.
At present this code path (Interface2WDLGenerator) is only executed
for interfaces that have an @WebService
Kevin Williams wrote:
I reported an intermittent failure like this a few days ago. Are you
seeing this consistently?
--
Kevin
Kevin,
Consistently enough for me to have to remove the vtests from my builds
in order to make some progress
Yours, Mike.
Folks,
I'm getting a vtest failure in my latest builds - any explanation?
---
T E S T S
---
Running
org.apache.tuscany.sca.vtest.javaapi.annotations.scope.ScopeAnnotationTe
stCase
atScope1
1 - 100 of 327 matches
Mail list logo
