Re: ready for take off?

2010-08-25 Thread Gurkan Erdogdu 
Not yet Mark!  At last run there were no problems.

Thanks;

--Gurkan




From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 1:57:47 AM
Subject: Re: ready for take off?

Gurkan, did you run the TCK lately?
I'd like to double check the TCK before I start with the release.

txs and LieGrue,
strub



- Original Message 
 From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
 To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
 Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 12:40:52 AM
 Subject: Re: ready for take off?
 
 Oki, I'll start with the release process on thursday  evening.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
 
 - Original Message  
  From: Joseph Bergmark bergm...@apache.org
  To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
   Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 1:46:24 PM
  Subject: Re: ready for take  off?
  
  +1 for alpha-2
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Joe
  
  On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:31  PM, Jakob  Korherr jakob.korh...@gmail.com  
 wrote:
   +1
  
   Regards,
Jakob
  
2010/8/21 Gerhard gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
   
+1
  
regards,
   gerhard
  
http://www.irian.at
  
   Your JSF powerhouse  -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and  German
  
Professional Support for Apache  MyFaces
  
   
  
   2010/8/21 Mark Struberg  strub...@yahoo.de
   
 given the fact that Gurkan currently  refactors a few core components 



 I'd
now
 also in favour to -alpha-2. We can  then test this release a  few 
  weeks 


 and
go for
 1.0.0  with only applying bugfixes.
   
  LieGrue,
strub
   


- Original Message  
 From:  Gerhard gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
   To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
   Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 4:41:16 PM
  Subject:  Re: ready for take off?
 
 +1 for  alpha2 (or  beta1)
 
  regards,
  gerhard

  http://www.irian.at
 
 Your JSF   powerhouse  -
 JSF Consulting, Development and
   Courses in English and  German
 
  Professional Support for Apache  MyFaces

 
 
 2010/8/21  Mark  Struberg  strub...@yahoo.de
  
  I could  also release an  -alpha-2, but given the  fact that our 
code
   is
 currently
  pretty  stable otherwise, I'd prefer 1.0.0  and later ship a  
  1.0.1 


 and
if all
   those  things are fixed a 1.1.0. To be honest - I pretty  much 
don't
  care
  about
   the  version number as long as we ship  something  working in the 
next
 week.
   So
  please gimme  your  opinions  :)
 
  
   LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
   
 
   - Original  Message  
From: Gerhard gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
  To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
  Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 3:29:17  PM
Subject: Re: ready for  take  off?
   
i would prefer a v1 which fixes e.g.  OWB-338  and   OWB-444.
  
 regards,
gerhard

   http://www.irian.at

   Your  JSF  powerhouse  -
JSF  Consulting, Development and
Courses  in English  and  German
  
 Professional Support for Apache   MyFaces
   
   
   
2010/8/21  Mark  Struberg strub...@yahoo.de

   Hoi

 I'd like to prepare the   OWB-1.0.0 release today, any Jiras 
  open
which
you
 like
  to resolve before?
 Is  all  well  tested and the quality didn't  suffer in the 
last
 days?
 
   LieGrue,
strub
  




  
 
   
 

 
   
   
 
  
  
  
   
   --
   Jakob  Korherr
  
blog: http://www.jakobk.com
   twitter:  http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
   work: http://www.irian.at

Checkstyle error

2010-08-25 Thread Matthias Wessendorf 
doing svn up, I do get two checkstyle errors on webbeans-impl:
-WebBeansDecorator.java
-WebBeansInterceptor.java

Unused import of WebBeansLogger.

With revision 989053 I fixed that...

-Matthias

-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

lifecycle interceptors for EJBs

2010-08-25 Thread Eric Covener 
In our OWBEjbInterceptor, we have a disconnect between how
@AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct/@PreDestroy are handled.

In the former, we only call the ejb containers ic.proceed() when we
fall off the end of our own ic.proceed() -- this seems good because it
means the last 299 interceptor called proceed, allowing the biz method
to run.

But for the lifecycle (PostConstruct, PreDestroy) callbacks, we call
the ejb containers ic.proceed() no matter what the 299 interceptors
did (e.g. did not call through 299 ic.proceed to the bottom) -- in the
OpenWebBeansEJBInterceptor itself.  Shouldn't this behave like
@AroundInvoke and only call the EJB one when we fall off the bottom of
our own invocation context?

-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: lifecycle interceptors for EJBs

2010-08-25 Thread Eric Covener 
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
 In our OWBEjbInterceptor, we have a disconnect between how
 @AroundInvoke and @PostConstruct/@PreDestroy are handled.

answered offline -- aroundinvoke is right and lifecycles should
ultimately behave the same.

-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com