So tallying the vote we have:
Andrus Adamchik (PMC) +1
Aristedes Maniatis +1
Kevin Menard (PMC) +1
Michael Gentry (PMC) +1
I will publish the files later tonight and send an announcement.
Thanks everybody!!
Andrus
On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
[VOTE: approve 3.0M1 rele
Actually that's one of the things that are not going away, rather it
is no longer recommended to use as an interception point for custom
logic. I guess we can be more clear on that page about what's removed
and what stays but is simply no longer considered the best practice.
Andrus
On Jul
I was reading on
http://cayenne.apache.org/doc/lifecycle-callbacks.html that the
setPersistenceState is going away, too (which I use). I set
breakpoints in my code and it appears to still be called -- at least
for this release.
I have a feeling this is something I'll have to be on the lookout for
On Jul 27, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
OK, I just made the lifecycle changes and my application runs again.
This is a pretty good test (I do some funky stuff), at least on the
older code (I don't have any JPA/etc in it). I'm +1 for this
milestone release.
Cool - so now we have th
OK, I just made the lifecycle changes and my application runs again.
This is a pretty good test (I do some funky stuff), at least on the
older code (I don't have any JPA/etc in it). I'm +1 for this
milestone release.
I'd like to put on my Devil's Advocate hat for a minute, though. (And
keep in m
On Jul 27, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Michael Gentry wrote:
Option 2 would be to remove it from the actual
code and documentation since it looks like it is still supported.
That would be my preference too - let's remove it M2.
Andrus
I was just pointing out that deprecated = gone in this case. :-)
Option 1 is to make the code still call fetchFinished() for 3.0 and
get rid of it in 3.1. Option 2 would be to remove it from the actual
code and documentation since it looks like it is still supported. The
downside to option 2 i
IMO with 3.0 being a major version change, it's a fair game to change
API .. as long as we don't abuse it. And in fact you can setup a
'PostLoad' callback to invoke existing 'fetchedFinished' on your
objects, so there is a reasonable replacement. Even better - since
POST_LOAD is executed be
Oh yeah, in 1.2.x, ObjectResolver.objectFromDataRow(DataRow) is what
called fetchFinished().
/dev/mrg
On 7/26/07, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, I finally was able to try to migrate my old 1.2.x project to 3.0.
After some missing jar (log4j, common collections, etc) issues and
r
OK, I finally was able to try to migrate my old 1.2.x project to 3.0.
After some missing jar (log4j, common collections, etc) issues and
renaming all of my packages from objectstyle to apache, I was able to
launch the application but it doesn't work. A good portion of my
application depends on fe
ncerned. It'll be nice to get other people to
beat on it as well.
--
Kevin
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Menard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:59 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Cayenne Release 3.0M1
>
>
Sorry, I didn't get to it today. It'll be next week before I can
look. If you decide before then, I guess I'm a +0. I'm in favor of a
release, but just haven't tried it. :-)
Thanks!
/dev/mrg
On 7/19/07, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been busy trying to get some stuff done
I've been busy trying to get some stuff done before a trip out of
town. I'll try to take a look at it today. I'm in favor of a
release, but would like to try it out just a bit first.
Thanks,
/dev/mrg
On 7/18/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's been quiet on the list for the
On Jul 19, 2007, at 1:00 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
Hmm . . .
I thought we were going to continue provide fat JARs for simplicity in
deploying. Is this not the case?
Can't find the thread right away, and not sure if we had a formal
vote on this (this was definitely discussed at some point),
yment.
--
Kevin
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Cayenne Release 3.0M1
>
> [VOTE: approve 3.0M1 release]
>
> I posted artifacts for
It's been quiet on the list for the last couple of weeks. Wonder if
all our PMC members are on vacation or soemthing?
Andrus
On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
[VOTE: approve 3.0M1 release]
I posted artifacts for 3.0M1 release here:
http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/r
ems this week. That should give me a
good enough idea as to how I'm going to vote.
--
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:15 PM
To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Cayenne Release 3.0M1
[VOTE: approve 3.0M1 release
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Cayenne Release 3.0M1
>
> [VOTE: approve 3.0M1 release]
>
> I posted artifacts for 3.0M1 release here:
>
>http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/3.0M1/
>
> Ther
On 17/07/2007, at 8:15 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
[VOTE: approve 3.0M1 release]
people.apache is offline again so I can't examine the particular
artifacts you produced. However, I have been doing extensive work in
using that same svn version of Cayenne for several weeks now without
any
[VOTE: approve 3.0M1 release]
I posted artifacts for 3.0M1 release here:
http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/3.0M1/
There were almost no comments since I tagged M1. I've been cleaning
things up, fixing various things (most notable is CAY-830 reported by
Ari), doing more regression
20 matches
Mail list logo
