Re: G ActiveMQ 4
Yep. I plan won working on it a bit this week and next. On 8/18/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm gonna need some help from the ActiveMQ folks... I did a quick try to enable the modules that Hiram added a while ago, and switch out the versions and well it barfed all over the place. Anyone have some free time to help? --jason On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: On 8/17/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still need to finish getting the 4.x series into the server. I think this is a must for 1.2. The AMQ folks are close to releasing 4.1, which is the first release that is using m2 and has m2 artifacts. I think we should switch over trunk to use the 4.1- SHAPSHOT and then 4.1 when they get the release out. Actually we've been using Maven 2 on ActiveMQ since back in January or February. Still need to get those gbeans hooked up that Hiram added too, they are not included in the assembly, though we are building them. Any objections to getting 4.1[-SNAPSHOT] in sometime soonish (week or so)? +1 No objection from me. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\! G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: G ActiveMQ 4
I'm gonna need some help from the ActiveMQ folks... I did a quick try to enable the modules that Hiram added a while ago, and switch out the versions and well it barfed all over the place. Anyone have some free time to help? --jason On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: On 8/17/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still need to finish getting the 4.x series into the server. I think this is a must for 1.2. The AMQ folks are close to releasing 4.1, which is the first release that is using m2 and has m2 artifacts. I think we should switch over trunk to use the 4.1- SHAPSHOT and then 4.1 when they get the release out. Actually we've been using Maven 2 on ActiveMQ since back in January or February. Still need to get those gbeans hooked up that Hiram added too, they are not included in the assembly, though we are building them. Any objections to getting 4.1[-SNAPSHOT] in sometime soonish (week or so)? +1 No objection from me. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\! G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
G ActiveMQ 4
We still need to finish getting the 4.x series into the server. I think this is a must for 1.2. The AMQ folks are close to releasing 4.1, which is the first release that is using m2 and has m2 artifacts. I think we should switch over trunk to use the 4.1- SHAPSHOT and then 4.1 when they get the release out. Still need to get those gbeans hooked up that Hiram added too, they are not included in the assembly, though we are building them. Any objections to getting 4.1[-SNAPSHOT] in sometime soonish (week or so)? --jason
Re: G ActiveMQ 4
On 8/17/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still need to finish getting the 4.x series into the server. I think this is a must for 1.2. The AMQ folks are close to releasing 4.1, which is the first release that is using m2 and has m2 artifacts. I think we should switch over trunk to use the 4.1- SHAPSHOT and then 4.1 when they get the release out. Actually we've been using Maven 2 on ActiveMQ since back in January or February. Still need to get those gbeans hooked up that Hiram added too, they are not included in the assembly, though we are building them. Any objections to getting 4.1[-SNAPSHOT] in sometime soonish (week or so)? +1 No objection from me. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: G ActiveMQ 4
On 8/17/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/17/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still need to finish getting the 4.x series into the server. I think this is a must for 1.2. The AMQ folks are close to releasing 4.1, which is the first release that is using m2 and has m2 artifacts. I think we should switch over trunk to use the 4.1- SHAPSHOT and then 4.1 when they get the release out. Actually we've been using Maven 2 on ActiveMQ since back in January or February. My apologies, I just realized that I misinterpreted your statement about Maven 2 :-(. Still need to get those gbeans hooked up that Hiram added too, they are not included in the assembly, though we are building them. Any objections to getting 4.1[-SNAPSHOT] in sometime soonish (week or so)? +1 No objection from me. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: G ActiveMQ 4
On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: On 8/17/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/17/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still need to finish getting the 4.x series into the server. I think this is a must for 1.2. The AMQ folks are close to releasing 4.1, which is the first release that is using m2 and has m2 artifacts. I think we should switch over trunk to use the 4.1- SHAPSHOT and then 4.1 when they get the release out. Actually we've been using Maven 2 on ActiveMQ since back in January or February. My apologies, I just realized that I misinterpreted your statement about Maven 2 :-(. No worries. --jason
