Hi, I merged some PRs to update the scm section and infra confirmed that the svn repos has been passed to read only mode when they started the migration process.
regards, François [email protected] Le 21/07/2021 à 11:04, Francois Papon a écrit : > > Good point! > > I will update the scm section of the pom and ask to pass the the old > svn repo in read only. > > François > [email protected] > Le 21/07/2021 à 11:02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : >> great news! >> did the <scm> section and release plugin was updated to enable releases? >> Also should we pass svn in read only if possible? recall xbean >> already got some weird state where we pushed to both locations >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >> >> >> Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 11:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >> >> Thanks for the update and taking action ! >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 7/21/21 10:58 AM, Francois Papon wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox: >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean >> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean> >> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail >> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail> >> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager >> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager> >> > >> > We can now merge the pending PRs. >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > François >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit : >> >> Thx for the ticket id ! >> >> >> >> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra: >> >>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908> >> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>> >> >>> >> >>> regards, >> >>> >> >>> François >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> >> >>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit : >> >>>> Hi François, >> >>>> >> >>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id >> anymore, >> >>>> sry. >> >>>> >> >>>> Gruss >> >>>> Richard >> >>>> >> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon: >> >>>>> Hi, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> François >> >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit : >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect >> >>>>>> the >> >>>>>> hard- >> >>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would >> >>>>>> be >> >>>>>> very >> >>>>>> appreciated. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343 >> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343> >> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb >> >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>: >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> regards, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> François >> >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit : >> >>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail- >> >>>>>>>> related >> >>>>>>>> patches? >> >>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;) >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain >> >>>>>>>> Manni- >> >>>>>>>> Bucau: >> >>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So >> >>>>>>>>> immediate >> >>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();. >> >>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we >> >>>>>>>>> should >> >>>>>>>>> target >> >>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use >> >>>>>>>>> such >> >>>>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since >> >>>>>>>>> adding is >> >>>>>>>>> easy >> >>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible). >> >>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural >> >>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>> resources >> >>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to >> >>>>>>>>> makes it >> >>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> SPI >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl >> >>>>>>>>> but >> >>>>>>>>> you >> >>>>>>>>> need to use another one"). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more >> >>>>>>>>> relevant >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as >> >>>>>>>>> soon >> >>>>>>>>> as >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the >> >>>>>>>>> lifecycle >> >>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak >> >>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>> terms >> >>>>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a >> >>>>>>>>> blocker >> >>>>>>>>> but >> >>>>>>>>> all >> >>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my >> >>>>>>>>> side). >> >>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to >> >>>>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>>>> another >> >>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard < >> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in >> >>>>>>>>>> tomee's >> >>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of >> >>>>>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>>> singleton >> >>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to >> >>>>>>>>>> implement >> >>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep >> >>>>>>>>>> as >> >>>>>>>>>> Romain >> >>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent >> >>>>>>>>>> Guillaume: >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default >> >>>>>>>>>>> instance >> >>>>>>>>>>> is >> >>>>>>>>>> already >> >>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the >> >>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider >> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Florent >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a >> >>>>>>>>>>>> public >> >>>>>>>>>>>> noarg >> >>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it >> >>>>>>>>>>>> will >> >>>>>>>>>>>> enable >> >>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr >> >>>>>>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>>>>>> this >> >>>>>>>>>>>> new >> >>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn >> >>>>>>>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard < >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very >> >>>>>>>>>> nice >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as we >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> given >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail >> >>>>>>>>>> server >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain >> >>>>>>>>>> Manni- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>> close: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail] >> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792>: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> update >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail] >> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800> >> >>>>>>>>>> (setText) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable >> >>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel >> >>>>>>>>>> free >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after). >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >> >>>>>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage >> >>>>>>>>>> which >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl >> >>>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com> >>
