Mohammed,
If you are interested in this, let me know. There is a generic Jira in
OPENEJB:

http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/OPENEJB-62

This needs to be updated with more granular information on what needs to be
done. Once you voice your interest, we will act accordingly.

Take care,
Jeremy

On 11/9/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
>
> > On 10/26/05, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >
> > Either works. If you want to contribute to OpenEJB alone, you don't
> > have
> >> to bother with Geronimo pieces. There are lots of ways to contribute:
> >> building the software yourself while reporting issues and documenting
> >> bits are the most easiest. When you're done with it, you can start
> >> contributing patches - take a look at OpenEJB JIRA - the issue report
> >> system - and pick up the one you could have much fun with.
> >>
> >> Start simple with following documentation and see if it works. Ask
> >> questions and voila, that's it.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, join #openejb channel on 
> >> irc.freenode.org<http://irc.freenode.org>
> <http://
> >> irc.freenode.org <http://irc.freenode.org>>- we're
> >> covering most of the TZs, so someone should always be there.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jacek
> >
> > Sorry for too much questions, but which version to work with 1.0 or
> > 2.0 ?, I
> > already downloaded the source code of 1.0 and succeeded to build it
> > and play
> > with it, but I feel that version 2.0 is the one the OpenEJB is
> > currently
> > focusing on, so which one do you suggest?
>
> Hi Mohammed,
>
> I noticed this thread kind of slowed down and just wanted to throw my
> 2c in hoping to get it started again.
>
> There is work to do on both 1.0 and 2.0. Both are important and both
> will be included in OpenEJB 3.0 when that gets fully off the ground.
>
> Jeremy Whitlock is doing some work on the WebAdmin Console which is
> our last box to check before we push out another 1.0. It would be
> really great if you could help out there. Jeremy probably has more
> details on what needs to be done.
>
> -David
>
>

Reply via email to