Re: first version of mvn generated site online
For me its ok. Good stuff Mark! Its great to have mavenize versioned web site now :) Thanks; /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:47:52 PM Subject: first version of mvn generated site online tadaaa: http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html There are still few failures I have to correct tomorrow: 1.) the headers of the sub modules are currently missing 2.) the links in the breadcrumbs are partly (mostly) broken. 3.) the structure of the page (on the disk) is not as I like it to be. I'll probably redeploy an update tomorrow evening. If all is ok, then I'll mv the main index.html to index2.html and create a fresh one with a redirect to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html LieGrue, strub
Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml
Hi Arash; We will just apply the specification requirements. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml Doesn't this make conflict with Spring bean.xml ? it looks like it is in Spring roadmap to become a light weight EJB 3.1 container, it may be possible in future that both web-beans and spring containers are allowed together. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Mark Struberg (JIRA) j...@apache.orgwrote: Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml --- Key: OWB-62 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-62 Project: OpenWebBeans Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Mark Struberg Assignee: Gurkan Erdogdu The term WebBeans has completely removed from the final PR spec and also the xml config files name has changed. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml
But Aresh is right. So as we have to fulfil the spec (which really requires beans.xml now) and also like to be applicable for a lot of situations, we may add a kind of OpenWebBeansConfiguration class which reads this name (and maybe a few other settings in the future) form an openwebbeans.properties from the classpath. LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com Betreff: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 13:56 Hi Arash; We will just apply the specification requirements. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml Doesn't this make conflict with Spring bean.xml ? it looks like it is in Spring roadmap to become a light weight EJB 3.1 container, it may be possible in future that both web-beans and spring containers are allowed together. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Mark Struberg (JIRA) j...@apache.orgwrote: Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml --- Key: OWB-62 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-62 Project: OpenWebBeans Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Mark Struberg Assignee: Gurkan Erdogdu The term WebBeans has completely removed from the final PR spec and also the xml config files name has changed. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: kevan hands out gold stars
Thanks a lot to Kevan and our mentors for helping us about every problems that we run across :) In the mean time, we really want to release our M1 in next Friday finally. /Gurkan From: Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:47:36 PM Subject: kevan hands out gold stars Since I was thinking about this, I thought I'd go ahead and send a note. I think you guys are off to a really good start. You're making a lot of really good progress with the implementation. The release preparation, although potentially delayed for a bit (which is not a bad thing at all), has gone very well. Most importantly, I'm very pleased by the amount of communication that I'm seeing. Keep up the good work! You all deserve a pat on the back this weekend, while reading the updated spec, of course... :-P --kevan
how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec
Hi! I'd like to know how we should cope with features we implement in OpenWebBeans which are _not_ specified in JSR-299 but are quite handy to have. 1.) Do we like to have such 'additional features' at all? I'd say yes, e.g. the injection of java primitives and wrappers for constructors and producers would be very valuable in praxis. Also a few optional configurations like to use a different name for 'beans.xml' 2.) If so, how do we document it? My preference would be to add a page for each extension in src/site/apt/extensions LieGrue, strub
Re: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec
For me ,content is looking good Mark. But do we have to put such a content before the implementation contains those futures ? I think that firstly we have to order our priorities for the jira tasks that are waiting to be solved. Currently, there are two milstone versions, namely M1 and M2 in the jira. I will add other milstone versions, M3, M4, M5 and finally the 1.0.0 version. After that we may partitioned the our issues over these versions. Before each milestone is released, we can work on the issues it has. What do you think guys about the above process? * 5 milestone versions are enough before the 1.0.0 version? * If you think that we follow another path for our releasing process, please give us an information about it. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:47:09 AM Subject: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec I'd like to add a site (+functionality behind) with the following content: -- Extensions over the JSR-299 Specification This section contains a list of functionality in OpenWebBeans which is not covered by the official specification. OpenWebBeans is fully compatible with the JSR-299 standard if the default configuration is being used. Nevertheless some parts of the behaviour may be changed and some functionality is additionally available. Please note that using the mentioned functionality can cause that your application may not be run on other WebBeans implementations. OpenWebBeans may be configured that a WARNING message will be logged whenever any of this additional functionality is being used. -- The configuration may be done with openwebbeans.properties as explained below. LieGrue, strub --- Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de Betreff: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 14:56 Hi! I'd like to know how we should cope with features we implement in OpenWebBeans which are _not_ specified in JSR-299 but are quite handy to have. 1.) Do we like to have such 'additional features' at all? I'd say yes, e.g. the injection of java primitives and wrappers for constructors and producers would be very valuable in praxis. Also a few optional configurations like to use a different name for 'beans.xml' 2.) If so, how do we document it? My preference would be to add a page for each extension in src/site/apt/extensions LieGrue, strub
Re: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec
Gurkan, you are absolutely right that there is currently no need to force such features. But on the other hand, there will be the point when we will like to add one or the others of them. And since I'm a little forgetfully, I better write things down immediately ;) LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com Betreff: Re: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 17:48 For me ,content is looking good Mark. But do we have to put such a content before the implementation contains those futures ? I think that firstly we have to order our priorities for the jira tasks that are waiting to be solved. Currently, there are two milstone versions, namely M1 and M2 in the jira. I will add other milstone versions, M3, M4, M5 and finally the 1.0.0 version. After that we may partitioned the our issues over these versions. Before each milestone is released, we can work on the issues it has. What do you think guys about the above process? * 5 milestone versions are enough before the 1.0.0 version? * If you think that we follow another path for our releasing process, please give us an information about it. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:47:09 AM Subject: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec I'd like to add a site (+functionality behind) with the following content: -- Extensions over the JSR-299 Specification This section contains a list of functionality in OpenWebBeans which is not covered by the official specification. OpenWebBeans is fully compatible with the JSR-299 standard if the default configuration is being used. Nevertheless some parts of the behaviour may be changed and some functionality is additionally available. Please note that using the mentioned functionality can cause that your application may not be run on other WebBeans implementations. OpenWebBeans may be configured that a WARNING message will be logged whenever any of this additional functionality is being used. -- The configuration may be done with openwebbeans.properties as explained below. LieGrue, strub --- Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de Betreff: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 14:56 Hi! I'd like to know how we should cope with features we implement in OpenWebBeans which are _not_ specified in JSR-299 but are quite handy to have. 1.) Do we like to have such 'additional features' at all? I'd say yes, e.g. the injection of java primitives and wrappers for constructors and producers would be very valuable in praxis. Also a few optional configurations like to use a different name for 'beans.xml' 2.) If so, how do we document it? My preference would be to add a page for each extension in src/site/apt/extensions LieGrue, strub
Re: kevan hands out gold stars
+1 I have to second that. Funny is I though the same, before I read it. -M On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote: Since I was thinking about this, I thought I'd go ahead and send a note. I think you guys are off to a really good start. You're making a lot of really good progress with the implementation. The release preparation, although potentially delayed for a bit (which is not a bad thing at all), has gone very well. Most importantly, I'm very pleased by the amount of communication that I'm seeing. Keep up the good work! You all deserve a pat on the back this weekend, while reading the updated spec, of course... :-P --kevan -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/RevisedPublicDraftOfJSR299JavaContextsAndDependencyInjection -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
AW: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299
There was a long discussion about how to name the baby finally, and I honestly have to admit: maybe I'm to dumb to understand, but the now chosen name is a) not handy as a buzzphrase and b) exactly non_meaningful as the original one. So I'd suggest to at least keep our projects name as 'OpenWebBeans' because the terminus 'WebBeans' is at least shorter to spell :) LieGrue, strub --- Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org Betreff: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299 An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 18:22 http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/RevisedPublicDraftOfJSR299JavaContextsAndDependencyInjection -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: There was a long discussion about how to name the baby finally, and I honestly have to admit: maybe I'm to dumb to understand, but the now chosen name is a) not handy as a buzzphrase and b) exactly non_meaningful as the original one. So I'd suggest to at least keep our projects name as 'OpenWebBeans' because the terminus 'WebBeans' is at least shorter to spell :) +1 to OpenWebBeans LieGrue, strub --- Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org Betreff: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299 An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 18:22 http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/RevisedPublicDraftOfJSR299JavaContextsAndDependencyInjection -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: AW: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299
+1 /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:35:46 AM Subject: AW: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299 There was a long discussion about how to name the baby finally, and I honestly have to admit: maybe I'm to dumb to understand, but the now chosen name is a) not handy as a buzzphrase and b) exactly non_meaningful as the original one. So I'd suggest to at least keep our projects name as 'OpenWebBeans' because the terminus 'WebBeans' is at least shorter to spell :) LieGrue, strub --- Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org Betreff: WebBeans is dead. Long live the JSR 299 An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 18:22 http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/RevisedPublicDraftOfJSR299JavaContextsAndDependencyInjection -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec
Ok, Mark :) You would also create the jira tickets for features under the release version (M1or M2 ..M5) you think that will provide these functionalities. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:05:45 AM Subject: Re: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec Gurkan, you are absolutely right that there is currently no need to force such features. But on the other hand, there will be the point when we will like to add one or the others of them. And since I'm a little forgetfully, I better write things down immediately ;) LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com Betreff: Re: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 17:48 For me ,content is looking good Mark. But do we have to put such a content before the implementation contains those futures ? I think that firstly we have to order our priorities for the jira tasks that are waiting to be solved. Currently, there are two milstone versions, namely M1 and M2 in the jira. I will add other milstone versions, M3, M4, M5 and finally the 1.0.0 version. After that we may partitioned the our issues over these versions. Before each milestone is released, we can work on the issues it has. What do you think guys about the above process? * 5 milestone versions are enough before the 1.0.0 version? * If you think that we follow another path for our releasing process, please give us an information about it. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:47:09 AM Subject: AW: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec I'd like to add a site (+functionality behind) with the following content: -- Extensions over the JSR-299 Specification This section contains a list of functionality in OpenWebBeans which is not covered by the official specification. OpenWebBeans is fully compatible with the JSR-299 standard if the default configuration is being used. Nevertheless some parts of the behaviour may be changed and some functionality is additionally available. Please note that using the mentioned functionality can cause that your application may not be run on other WebBeans implementations. OpenWebBeans may be configured that a WARNING message will be logged whenever any of this additional functionality is being used. -- The configuration may be done with openwebbeans.properties as explained below. LieGrue, strub --- Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de Betreff: how to cope with 'additional' features of OpenWebBeans over the Spec An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 14:56 Hi! I'd like to know how we should cope with features we implement in OpenWebBeans which are _not_ specified in JSR-299 but are quite handy to have. 1.) Do we like to have such 'additional features' at all? I'd say yes, e.g. the injection of java primitives and wrappers for constructors and producers would be very valuable in praxis. Also a few optional configurations like to use a different name for 'beans.xml' 2.) If so, how do we document it? My preference would be to add a page for each extension in src/site/apt/extensions LieGrue, strub
Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml
nice idea mark we can also discuss this in specification list, this is the benefit of parallel implementation of spec in Apache, they may not notice (or don't care about!) some existing problems, On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: But Aresh is right. So as we have to fulfil the spec (which really requires beans.xml now) and also like to be applicable for a lot of situations, we may add a kind of OpenWebBeansConfiguration class which reads this name (and maybe a few other settings in the future) form an openwebbeans.properties from the classpath. LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com Betreff: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 13:56 Hi Arash; We will just apply the specification requirements. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml Doesn't this make conflict with Spring bean.xml ? it looks like it is in Spring roadmap to become a light weight EJB 3.1 container, it may be possible in future that both web-beans and spring containers are allowed together. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Mark Struberg (JIRA) j...@apache.orgwrote: Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml --- Key: OWB-62 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-62 Project: OpenWebBeans Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Mark Struberg Assignee: Gurkan Erdogdu The term WebBeans has completely removed from the final PR spec and also the xml config files name has changed. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Arash Rajaeeyan -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml
arash, can you please post your findings on the spec list? txs, strub --- Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com Betreff: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 20:18 nice idea mark we can also discuss this in specification list, this is the benefit of parallel implementation of spec in Apache, they may not notice (or don't care about!) some existing problems, On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: But Aresh is right. So as we have to fulfil the spec (which really requires beans.xml now) and also like to be applicable for a lot of situations, we may add a kind of OpenWebBeansConfiguration class which reads this name (and maybe a few other settings in the future) form an openwebbeans.properties from the classpath. LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com Betreff: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 13:56 Hi Arash; We will just apply the specification requirements. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml Doesn't this make conflict with Spring bean.xml ? it looks like it is in Spring roadmap to become a light weight EJB 3.1 container, it may be possible in future that both web-beans and spring containers are allowed together. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Mark Struberg (JIRA) j...@apache.orgwrote: Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml --- Key: OWB-62 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-62 Project: OpenWebBeans Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Mark Struberg Assignee: Gurkan Erdogdu The term WebBeans has completely removed from the final PR spec and also the xml config files name has changed. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Arash Rajaeeyan -- Arash Rajaeeyan
new site deployed
Hi! I've now deployed an updated maven site generation to http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html It will be available in ~30 minutes, depending on the rsync schedule. It is far from being prefect, but at least this is now the first version I don't have to be ashamed off ;) One thing I noticed: the auto generated license page only shows the ASL2 text. Should we show the content of the NOTICE.txt in a page of the homepage also? Or is the file in the checkout enough? LieGrue, strub
Re: new site deployed
Congratulation Mark!. I think that license file is enough. I looked at some other top level projects, they are contains the LICENSE file. I did not see the NOTICE file. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:43:35 AM Subject: new site deployed Hi! I've now deployed an updated maven site generation to http://incubator.apache.org/openwebbeans/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/index.html It will be available in ~30 minutes, depending on the rsync schedule. It is far from being prefect, but at least this is now the first version I don't have to be ashamed off ;) One thing I noticed: the auto generated license page only shows the ASL2 text. Should we show the content of the NOTICE.txt in a page of the homepage also? Or is the file in the checkout enough? LieGrue, strub
