On Jun 5, 2006, at 7:11 PM, John Sisson wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
After discussion I think we can all live with:
modules >> o.a.g
assemblies >> o.a.g
configs >> o.a.g.module
plugins >> o.a.g.plugin
applications >> o.a.g
note that it's "plugin" not "plugins" to match the package name.
Sim
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=comments#action_12414914
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2071:
I've looked at the deployment-plugin.patch and most of it looks good. However
I'm confused by the VelocityFilter class si
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:29 PM, Neal Sanche wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Neal Sanche wrote:
Hey guys,
Could you be so kind as to let me know what I should be building
today? I currently have branches\1.1 and am building that. If I
want a 1.1 server to play with, d
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2079?page=all ]
David Jencks resolved GERONIMO-2079:
Resolution: Fixed
This is not cglib's problem at all, we managed to create a nice race condition.
It should be fixed in openejb rev 2665 but t
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2079?page=all ]
David Jencks reassigned GERONIMO-2079:
--
Assign To: David Jencks
> No methodProxy in EJBInvocation at startup under heavy load
> -
David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Neal Sanche wrote:
Hey guys,
Could you be so kind as to let me know what I should be building
today? I currently have branches\1.1 and am building that. If I want
a 1.1 server to play with, do I build from there or from trunk\ ?
you have 1.1
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Neal Sanche wrote:
Hey guys,
Could you be so kind as to let me know what I should be building
today? I currently have branches\1.1 and am building that. If I
want a 1.1 server to play with, do I build from there or from trunk\ ?
you have 1.1[-SNAPSHOT]. Trunk
Hey guys,
Could you be so kind as to let me know what I should be building today?
I currently have branches\1.1 and am building that. If I want a 1.1
server to play with, do I build from there or from trunk\ ?
Thanks tons.
-Neal
Sachin Patel wrote:
The following driver can run on both JDK 1.4 or 1.5. It should be run
with WTP 1.0x and will eventually but not currently run on WTP 1.5.
http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/eclipse/unstable/g-eclipse-plugin-1.1-SNAPSHOT-deployable.zip
-sachin
Hi Sachin,
I am curr
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is
in preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
+1
John
David Jencks wrote:
After discussion I think we can all live with:
modules >> o.a.g
assemblies >> o.a.g
configs >> o.a.g.module
plugins >> o.a.g.plugin
applications >> o.a.g
note that it's "plugin" not "plugins" to match the package name.
Similarly it's "module" not "modules" to match the num
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha updated GERONIMO-2071:
-
Attachment: modules.patch
configs.patch
openejb.patch
These patches are built against rev 411948. These pa
I'm ok with it but would prefer to turn them over after Yoko graduates. My understanding is that an
incubator project can't release anything. I expect they don't change a whole lot but that would be
my only reservation.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that it's time that we, Yoko, take respo
Hiram / James,
Currently we are running off 3.2.4-SNAPSHOT. Can you release an official version? I'd like to get
the official G RC out tomorrow.
thanks
Matt
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Howdy Folks,
I was planing to work on a patch that takes that gbean related modules
in ActiveMQ puts them in
g
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=all ]
Prasad Kashyap updated GERONIMO-2071:
-
Attachment: deployment-plugin.patch
David, can you please try this deployment-plugin.patch.
> Move Geronimo build to M2 (new 1.2 trunk)
> ---
Heh, I can do it.
David Jencks wrote:
I'm going to be there too, and I think matt will be as well
so who knows how to update this page anyway :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 5, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Carmen Hagen wrote:
http://geronimo.apache.org/events.html
Apache Geronimo Events > Upcoming Ev
+1
-dain
On Jun 5, 2006, at 5:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:
After discussion I think we can all live with:
modules >> o.a.g
assemblies >> o.a.g
configs >> o.a.g.module
plugins >> o.a.g.plugin
applications >> o.a.g
note that it's "plugin" not "plugins" to match the package name.
Similarly it'
I've read the patch over and it looks good to me.
+1 from me, but I'm not sure it should get counted since I didn't
apply the patch.
-dain
On Jun 5, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Howdy folks,
Here's a patch that brings in the activemq gbean modules into
geronimo. It's partly wh
I'm going to be there too, and I think matt will be as wellso who knows how to update this page anyway :-)thanksdavid jencksOn Jun 5, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Carmen Hagen wrote:http://geronimo.apache.org/events.html Apache Geronimo Events > Upcoming Events 6/22/06 -- (Thursday) TheServerSide Java Sympos
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-13?page=all ]
Guillaume Nodet updated XBEAN-13:
-
Attachment: XBEAN-13.patch
> NPE when the location inside tag can not be resolved
>
>
>
After discussion I think we can all live with:
modules >> o.a.g
assemblies >> o.a.g
configs >> o.a.g.module
plugins >> o.a.g.plugin
applications >> o.a.g
note that it's "plugin" not "plugins" to match the package name.
Similarly it's "module" not "modules" to match the number of the
plugin
NPE when the location inside tag can not be resolved
Key: XBEAN-13
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XBEAN-13
Project: XBean
Type: Bug
Components: server
Versions: 2.4
Reporter
http://geronimo.apache.org/events.html
Apache Geronimo Events > Upcoming
Events
6/22/06 -- (Thursday) TheServerSide
Java Symposium EU (Barcelona, Spain)
1:30 PM
Geronimo panel discussion with Bruce
Snyder, Aaron Mulder and James Strachan
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=comments#action_12414882
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2071:
Extracted the poms and classpath.properties for console from big
applications.patch.zip. This should bring complete appli
On Jun 5, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Howdy folks,
Here's a patch that brings in the activemq gbean modules into
geronimo. It's partly what was in activemq 4.x and integrated into
geronimo 1.2-dead merged with the changes in the 3.x branch.
It compiles at least and looks like a r
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=comments#action_12414880
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2071:
Copied the magic gball files to their locations in the big applications.patch
and add the poms. Commented out the referen
Howdy folks,
Here's a patch that brings in the activemq gbean modules into
geronimo. It's partly what was in activemq 4.x and integrated into
geronimo 1.2-dead merged with the changes in the 3.x branch.
It compiles at least and looks like a reasonable start. Once further
integration work gets
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=comments#action_12414879
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2071:
prasad, the deployment-plugin patch seems to have about 5 copies of each file
in it. Can you try again to produce a patch
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The specs that have actually changed will get their version
incremented. The root POM that's shared by all the modules will also
get its version incremented.
We just need to be careful that a mvn deploy at the root
Hi David,
Not really. We are already building a rar, its the 'general purpose'
we throw all our dependencies in it so that it will work in most app
servers kinda rar. I think I'll let customized rars be the job of
integrators or app servers. I think that this makes sense since it
will not help
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 as long as geronimo continues to build :-)
Second that! :-)
+1 for the change if the above statement is in effect.
david jencks
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=comments#action_12414870
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2071:
Moved console parts into a new applications/console directory for better m2
build: fixed m1 build so it works with the new
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
Can y
+1, I think this is a good idea.
Do you think the minimal rar we are building should move to amq? We
might not be the only ones who would like it :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Howdy Folks,
I was planing to work on a patch that takes that gbean re
+1 as long as geronimo continues to build :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that it's time that we, Yoko, take responsibility for the
CORBA spec jars. After Geronimo releases v1.1, let's plan on
moving them over to Yoko.
Thoughts?
Regard
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
AFAIK, all specs poms have been changed and even specs with no code
changed
have been upgraded with a minor release to reflect the pom change.
These changes were mainly about unneeded transitive dependencies.
So I think all specs should be re
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package
name for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any
opinion. For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
Can you be more specific? What do you want the transact
AFAIK, all specs poms have been changed and even specs with no code changed
have been upgraded with a minor release to reflect the pom change.
These changes were mainly about unneeded transitive dependencies.
So I think all specs should be re-released.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Hiram Chirino wrote
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
I like t
I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package name
for jar files. For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any opinion.
For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.
-dain
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (
Thanks Paul.. I'll put that on my dish too.
On 6/5/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hiram, I think that's a good idea since that code is so closely tied
to geronimo and can easily be affected by changes to it. Case in
point is that I recently debugged a problem in the geronimo conso
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The specs that have actually changed will get their version
incremented. The root POM that's shared by all the modules will also
get its version incremented.
We just need to be careful that a mvn deploy at the root does not
rebuild and red
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that it's time that we, Yoko, take responsibility for the CORBA
spec jars. After Geronimo releases v1.1, let's plan on moving them over
to Yoko.
Thoughts?
I'm leaning towards +1, but what would that mean t
Hiram, I think that's a good idea since that code is so closely tied
to geronimo and can easily be affected by changes to it. Case in
point is that I recently debugged a problem in the geronimo console
due to changes in 1.1 and ended up needing to patch the AMQ gbean
code. I created JIRAs in bo
o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
o.a.g.plugins
o.a.g.assemblies
o.a.g.applications
o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
--jason
On 6/5/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that is fine, as long as we get the activemq folks here (like
you), to help us keep these gbeans in sync with the latest activemq.
+1
* * *
Completely unrelated... well sorta... I really think we should think
about using activemq f
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that it's time that we, Yoko, take responsibility for the CORBA
spec jars. After Geronimo releases v1.1, let's plan on moving them over
to Yoko.
Thoughts?
I'm leaning towards +1, but what would that mean to Geronimo? Will you
wipe
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=comments#action_12414854
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2071:
Applied 5 june 2006 applications.patch in rev 411916. However, I had to merge
the pom.xml by hand, and:
- did not skip te
We already use a separate groupId for specs. (o.a.g.specs). We have to
decide between having some 5 top level groupIds under o.a.g versus
having all artifacts for modules, configs, specs, samples, under the
same groupId. I am beginning to think, seeing the latter in the repo
is more confusing.
o
I think that it's time that we, Yoko, take responsibility for the CORBA
spec jars. After Geronimo releases v1.1, let's plan on moving them over
to Yoko.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Alan
> I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
Can you supply a concrete use case?
Sure, I believe that we will eventually get G split up into a few
smaller chunks.
Probably, one tree of modules, that represents the very core of G,
none of the J2EE bits at all. Then anoth
It's in the CORBA spec jar.
Regards,
Alan
anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Hi,
Where will I find o.omg.CSI.EstablishContext class ? I am getting
the following while building j2ee-corba configuration :
Thanks
Anita
... 24 more
===
[INFO]
---
I think that is fine, as long as we get the activemq folks here (like
you), to help us keep these gbeans in sync with the latest activemq.
* * *
Completely unrelated... well sorta... I really think we should think
about using activemq for all cluster or inter-geronimo node
communication. Even i
+1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is in
preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
The specs that have actually changed will get their version
incremented. The root POM that's shared by all the modules will also
get its version incremented.
Regards,
Alan
David Jencks wrote:
+1, assuming that these are only for the specs that have actually
changed since 1.0.
thanks
david
Jason Dillon wrote:
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
Can you supply a concrete use case?
but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
right now.
Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
and at that time I thi
Howdy Folks,
I was planing to work on a patch that takes that gbean related modules
in ActiveMQ puts them in
geronimo. I just wanted to make sure that there are no objections to
this. Those gbean modules are mostly just gbean related glue code
which I think make more sense living in Geronimo.
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
right now.
Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two
additional groupId's t
David Jencks wrote:
Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
I think these are both bad. First of all, due to our recent renaming,
the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
More im
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-731?page=all ]
Christopher G. Stach II updated AMQ-731:
Attachment: amq-txcontext.patch
This simple patch fixes the whole problem.
> Redeliveries don't work with resource adapter and Jencks
> -
+1. More inline..
--- Prasad Kashyap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1.
>
> The m2 work in dead-1.2 included modules, deployment-plugin and all
> the apps. They all passed tests too. We can consider the m2 work from
> dead-1.2 merged when we have got these building and testing
> successfully into
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-731?page=comments#action_36242 ]
Christopher G. Stach II commented on AMQ-731:
-
It could be multiple transactions or multiple branches. For example, a single
database connection can support X numb
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2084?page=all ]
Guillaume Nodet updated GERONIMO-2084:
--
Attachment: GERONIMO-2084-bis.patch
This patch will work better (the previous one would fail when resuming a
transaction in an unmanaged thread)
+1
--jason
-Original Message-
From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:29:11
To:Geronimo
Subject: [RTC] Tag new specs for Geronimo v1.1 release
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is in
preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 rele
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-731?page=comments#action_36241 ]
David Jencks commented on AMQ-731:
--
I assume you mean mutliple jta transactions rather than multiple branches of a
single jta transaction. In this case something else such as
+1
--kevan
On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This
is in preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
+1 to make the new 1.1 tag
On Jun 5, 2006, at 12:33 PM, David Jencks wrote:
+1, assuming that these are only for the specs that have actually
changed since 1.0.
David, I don't believe we can do that unless we reorganize the tree
such that every spec has a separate trunk, branches, and tags
+1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is in
> preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
+1, assuming that these are only for the specs that have actually
changed since 1.0.
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 5, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This
is in preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
+1
Jacek
On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is in
preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
I would like to make a new tag, v1.1, for the specs release. This is in
preparation for the Geronimo v1.1 release.
Regards,
Alan
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=all ]
Prasad Kashyap updated GERONIMO-2071:
-
Attachment: applications.patch
applications.patch does not include the console and magicGball reorg.
It also configures surefire in the geronimo/p
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2071?page=all ]
Prasad Kashyap updated GERONIMO-2071:
-
Attachment: deployment-plugin.patch
The deployment-plugin.patch (later used by magicGball tests)
> Move Geronimo build to M2 (new 1.2 trunk)
> ---
Hi David,
The dependency tags for the the module ID of the server wide datasource in
the Geronimo-web.xml were not required for 1.0, so it is unnatural for user
to know they are required for 1.1. If the upgrader tool doesnt indicate
that, user will just have to go figure that out by luck.
One a
+1.
The m2 work in dead-1.2 included modules, deployment-plugin and all
the apps. They all passed tests too. We can consider the m2 work from
dead-1.2 merged when we have got these building and testing
successfully into new trunk.
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-731?page=comments#action_36238 ]
Christopher G. Stach II commented on AMQ-731:
-
Resin's TransactionImpl.suspend() method, which doesn't exist in Geronimo,
calls XAResource.end(Xid, XAResource.TMSUS
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:41 AM, James Strachan wrote:
On 6/5/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/5/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just added a couple of trivial scripts for ActiveMQ and
> ServiceMix - though am not sure if these trivial shell scripts in
> gbu
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with e.g.
grep djencks all_changes.log
I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
I propose that as we merge, verify the chan
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-724?page=all ]
james strachan reassigned AMQ-724:
--
Assign To: james strachan
> Stomp client is not removed from the broker on client disconnect
> ---
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-731?page=comments#action_36237 ]
Christopher G. Stach II commented on AMQ-731:
-
Comparing Resin's and Geronmio's TransactionManagerImpl suspend methods,
Geronimo's doesn't even suspend the transact
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with e.g.
grep djencks all_changes.log
I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
I propose that as we merge, verify the changes have already been
merged, or decide they are obsol
On 6/5/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/5/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just added a couple of trivial scripts for ActiveMQ and
> ServiceMix - though am not sure if these trivial shell scripts in
> gbuild fall under the Geronimo ReviewThenCommit? If ther
On 6/5/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just added a couple of trivial scripts for ActiveMQ and
ServiceMix - though am not sure if these trivial shell scripts in
gbuild fall under the Geronimo ReviewThenCommit? If there's an issue I
can always move them into the ActiveMQ and Se
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2081?page=comments#action_12414781
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2081:
Connections closed in queue servlet in rev 411811 (forgot the jira number there)
topic servlet fixed in rev 411836
> Concu
Here's the discussion on why we had to change the groupIds
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg19426.html
And here's the JIRA that restructured the POMs and gave those groupIds.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1755
I hope I understood what David is saying correct
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-732?page=comments#action_36235 ]
Hiram Chirino commented on AMQ-732:
---
How big were the messages? Can the shiped example producer and consumer in the
examples directory reproduce the issue?
> Infinite recov
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-678?page=all ]
james strachan reassigned AMQ-678:
--
Assign To: Hiram Chirino
> MessageCleanup fails with mysql 4.1.x
> -
>
> Key: AMQ-678
> URL: https:/
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-732?page=all ]
james strachan reassigned AMQ-732:
--
Assign To: Hiram Chirino
> Infinite recovery loop.
> ---
>
> Key: AMQ-732
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/
Provide a TransactionManager implementation on top of TransactionContextManager
---
Key: GERONIMO-2085
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2085
Project: Geronimo
Type: Improvem
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2083?page=comments#action_12414773
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2083:
Maven is not processing any upload requests at the moment, the codehaus outage
continues to be a disaster. I'm backpedall
On Jun 5, 2006, at 6:09 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to build the jetty module. I had to exclude the
following dependencies. All these dependencies have either been
removed
or have a different version available at repo1.maven.org/maven2. What
is the best way to handle thi
On 6/5/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 5, 2006, at 7:11 AM, James Strachan wrote:
> Anyone know how this report is setup? I'd love a similar report for
> ActiveMQ and ServiceMix to help us get patches applied ASAP
Hi James,
They are nice.
David Blevins created the scripts.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2084?page=all ]
Guillaume Nodet updated GERONIMO-2084:
--
Attachment: GERONIMO-2084.patch
This patch allows the TransactionContextManager to be used from unmanaged
threads
> The transaction manager nee
The transaction manager needs uncesseraly ties users to the
TransactionContextManager implementation
Key: GERONIMO-2084
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2084
Hi Folks,
After the customary 72 hour voting rule, the vote passes with 7 +1s:
+1 Hiram Chirino
+1 Guillaume Nodet
+1 Bruce Snyder
+1 Adrian Co
+1 Jonas Lim
+1 James Strachan
+1 Fritz Oconer
We will now get incubator pmc approval before going final with the release.
--
Regards,
Hiram
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-736?page=all ]
james strachan updated AMQ-736:
---
Patch Info: [Patch Available]
added patch available flag
> Broker is not delivering all messages to slow consumer
> ---
The mail dependency should probably be replaced with the
geronimo-spec-javamail jar file.
Rick
anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to build the jetty module. I had to exclude the
following dependencies. All these dependencies have either been removed
or have a different version avail
On Jun 5, 2006, at 7:11 AM, James Strachan wrote:
Anyone know how this report is setup? I'd love a similar report for
ActiveMQ and ServiceMix to help us get patches applied ASAP
Hi James,
They are nice.
David Blevins created the scripts. You can find them here -- https://
svn.apache.org/rep
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-736?page=all ]
james strachan resolved AMQ-736:
Fix Version: 4.0.1
Resolution: Fixed
Patch and test case applied - many thanks!
> Broker is not delivering all messages to slow consumer
>
Inline
Gianny Damour wrote:
Hi Matt,
Thanks for posting these results :)
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Gianny,
I applied your changes to fix the double execution. It looks like the
modifications you made overall improved performance by about 10% (from
1445 to 1591). However, I still see the doub
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
