Fixed.Cheers,Guillaume NodetOn 6/22/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:> IIUC, version specific information has snuck into elements that
> should be version free, e.g. . Here is a list of elements> that should have version information r
I tallied the votes so far and have 5 +1 Votes from the PMC and 1 +0. 4 PMC
members did not vote.
11 Commiters voted +1 and there was 1 +0. 7 Committers did not vote.
It appears that 1.1 has been voted a release !!
Today I will begin staging the jars to the mirror system and send the Press r
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2116?page=all ]
David Jencks closed GERONIMO-2116:
--
Resolution: Fixed
Patch applied in rev 416656. I also fixed the openejb version to 2.2-SNAPSHOT
from incorrect 2.1-SNAPSHOT
> Precompile JSPs in
Project: Apache Geronimo
Status: Resolved, Closed (6 items)
Updated In Last: Week (7 days)
** Bug
* [GERONIMO-2141] javamail providers component referencing non-released
version of activation specs.
* [GERONIMO-2139] Link to Geronimo documentation is out of date, point still
to atlassian s
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-83?page=comments#action_12417462
]
Sachin Patel commented on GERONIMODEVTOOLS-83:
--
Those are just warnings... The POM isn't actually needed for compilation. As
far as your error, I do be
Add javamail 1.4 to geronimo specs.
---
Key: GERONIMO-2148
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2148
Project: Geronimo
Type: New Feature
Security: public (Regular issues)
Components: mail
Versions: 1.2
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2148?page=all ]
Rick McGuire updated GERONIMO-2148:
---
Attachment: javamail-1.4.diff
Full diff for creating the new geronimo-spec-javamail-1.4 module.
> Add javamail 1.4 to geronimo specs.
> -
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2148?page=all ]
Rick McGuire updated GERONIMO-2148:
---
Attachment: 1.4.diff
This is just an FYI diff, showing the changes made to create the javamail 1.4
version from the javamail 1.3.1 base.
> Add javama
The following JIRA
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2148
Contains patches for adding a javamail 1.4 module to the specs
component. I've attached 2 patches to this JIRA for the review. The
larger patch (javamail-1.4.diff) is the full patch required to create
the new module. Inc
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-83?page=comments#action_12417469
]
Donald Woods commented on GERONIMODEVTOOLS-83:
--
What level of Java are you using?
Are you using Maven 2.0.4? Have you upgraded any of the Maven plugins?
inline..
--- Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think we should keep creating so many spaces. The idea behind
> having multiple spaces was to
> allow easier management of the documentation as we deliver new
> releases of Geronimo.
>
> Documents not attached to specific Geronimo
When installing and uninstalling a component, Bootstrap#init is not called on
uninstallation
Key: SM-471
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-471
Project: ServiceMix
thanks Guillaume
When I added the version so:
org.mortbay.jetty
maven-jetty6-plugin
6.0.0beta17
10
${basedir}/src/webapp
to service-console pom.xml, and the service-web pom.xml, I got a successful
build (at least eclipse project
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMODEVTOOLS-83?page=comments#action_12417479
]
Sachin Patel commented on GERONIMODEVTOOLS-83:
--
I've built on both 1.4.2 and 1.5. Maven 2.0.4. I have no customizations in
settings.xml, or profile.xm
A few days ago I had made a comment about Open for g-Business. Any thoughts as to whether we should
actually make this the server started message? I don't know if this would be considered conflicting
with IBM's Open for e-Business message but I like the ring.
Thoughts?
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-471?page=all ]
Guillaume Nodet resolved SM-471:
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Guillaume Nodet
Author: gnodet
Date: Fri Jun 23 05:43:55 2006
New Revision: 416704
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?re
I thought it was a funny comment, but it seems kind of cheesy to me in practice.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A few days ago I had made a comment about Open for g-Business. Any thoughts as
to whether we should
actually make this the server started mess
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I tallied the votes so far and have 5 +1 Votes from the PMC and 1 +0. 4
PMC members did not vote.
11 Commiters voted +1 and there was 1 +0. 7 Committers did not vote.
It appears that 1.1 has been voted a release !!
Congratulations!!
Bill
Yeah I think it would be somewhat cheesy as well.
On Jun 23, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I thought it was a funny comment, but it seems kind of cheesy to me
in practice.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A few days ago I had made a comment about
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-528?page=comments#action_36462 ]
Holger Hoffstätte commented on AMQ-528:
---
This one is *really* weird so I decided to ask Dawid Kurzyniec what might cause
this. Here's his reply:
Dawid Kurzyniec wrote:
>
Congrats!!!
Cheeers!
Hernan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I tallied the votes so far and have 5 +1 Votes from the PMC and 1 +0. 4
PMC members did not vote.
11 Commiters voted +1 and there was 1 +0. 7 Committers did not vote.
It appears that 1.1 has been voted a release !!
Today I will begin stagin
I say pour on the cheese!
Paul
On 6/23/06, Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah I think it would be somewhat cheesy as well.
On Jun 23, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I thought it was a funny comment, but it seems kind of cheesy to me
> in practice.
>
> Thanks,
>Aaron
>
>
Hi,
I'm wondering does the move of the ServiceMix Eclipse tooling to the GoOpen
server signal a move forward in its status? :)
I'm in the process of attempting to build
servicemix-packaging-eclipse-plugin ... clearly this does not build straight
from subversion right now, and appears to have been
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-528?page=comments#action_36463 ]
Holger Hoffstätte commented on AMQ-528:
---
Quick follow-up:
>> Thanks a lot for clearing this up. Would it be possible for the nanoTimer
>> to discover the native JDK 1.5 t
It might seem a bit cheesy but "Open for G-Business" sounds GREAT. I love it!!!
:D
Cheez!
Hernan
Paul McMahan wrote:
I say pour on the cheese!
Paul
On 6/23/06, Sachin Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah I think it would be somewhat cheesy as well.
On Jun 23, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Aaron Muld
+1
On 6/22/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have uploaded a new version of ServiceMix 3.0-M2.
Distributions are available at:
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
Maven 1, Maven 2 repos an
Here is the revised press release for Geronimo 1.1. This incorporates all
feedback received.
PMC members, may I forward this to the PRC or will someone from the PMC send this? I will update
the Apache site with the distribution on Saturday. I plan to update the Geronimo Web Site on Monday
hi,
We ( Me & Manu ) have created a implementation of global JNDI based
on the feedback received on the dev list.
It works like this.
* The implementation uses GeronimoRootContext and ReadOnlyContext
thats part of naming module to create the root context ( geronimo: ).
The Context is accessed
Could you raise a JIRA and attach the patch for review ?Thanks,Guillaume NodetOn 6/23/06, Krishnakumar B <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:hi,We ( Me & Manu ) have created a implementation of global JNDI based
on the feedback received on the dev list.It works like this.* The implementation uses GeronimoR
btw, I have looked in the ServiceMix JIRA, but there does not appear to be
any entries for it, and the link on the wiki [here] is not a link:
http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/Eclipse+plugin
-Original Message-
From: David Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006
I like it ;-)
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> A few days ago I had made a comment about Open for g-Business. Any
> thoughts as to whether we should actually make this the server started
> message? I don't know if this would be considered conflicting with
> IBM's Open for e-Business message but I like the
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1277?page=all ]
David Jencks reassigned GERONIMO-1277:
--
Assign To: David Jencks
> Change group-id to org.apache.geronimo
> --
>
> Key: GERONIMO-1277
>
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1980?page=comments#action_12417521
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-1980:
I would really prefer the plugin installer be outside j2ee-system. Could we
put it in a separate configuration that we lo
Can someone help explain what I need to do to get a GBean installed
for GShell?
I've looked over some of the other GBeans and created:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/gshell/trunk/
gshell-server/gshell-server-gbean/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/
gshell/server/gbean/S
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1659?page=comments#action_12417569
]
Anita Kulshreshtha commented on GERONIMO-1659:
--
The sytstem module underwent many changes to incorporate geronimo plugins.
More ant code was added for
t
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1659?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1659:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
> Module migration to Maven 2: system
> ---
>
> Key
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2044?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-2044:
--
Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
> Compilation failure: java.nio.BufferOverflowException
> -
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1732?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1732:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
> Module migration to Maven 2: jetty-builder
> --
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1731?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1731:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
> Module migration to Maven2: jetty
> -
>
> Key: GE
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1725?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1725:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
geronimo-dependency.xml has been checked into the code
> Module migration to Maven 2: clien
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1677?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1677:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
geronimo-dependency.xml files generated by m1 build have been checked into the
code.
> Pl
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1660?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1660:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
> Application migration to Maven 2: Console
> -
>
>
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1564?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1564:
--
Fix Version: 1.1
(was: 1.2)
Resolution: Fixed
> Use specific geronimo.assemble.xx properties in assembly p
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1785?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha resolved GERONIMO-1785:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
> Application migration to Maven 2: magicGball
> ---
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1702?page=all ]
Anita Kulshreshtha closed GERONIMO-1702:
Fix Version: 1.2
Resolution: Fixed
Now maven 1 and maven 2 builds are independent of each other.
> The latest maven 1 Build proce
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1564?page=all ]
John Sisson reopened GERONIMO-1564:
---
This has been reopened as the proposed changes in the description have not been
made and are not in 1.1.
> Use specific geronimo.assemble.xx prope
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1564?page=all ]
John Sisson updated GERONIMO-1564:
--
Fix Version: 1.2
(was: 1.1)
Version: 1.1
> Use specific geronimo.assemble.xx properties in assembly project.xml files
>
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
A few days ago I had made a comment about Open for g-Business. Any
thoughts as to whether we should actually make this the server started
message? I don't know if this would be considered conflicting with
IBM's Open for e-Business message but I like the ring.
Thoughts?
Great point John. I didn't think of that.
Paul
On 6/24/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> A few days ago I had made a comment about Open for g-Business. Any
> thoughts as to whether we should actually make this the server started
> message? I don't know if this
oops! my mistake..
Thanks
Anita
--- "John Sisson (JIRA)" wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1564?page=all ]
>
> John Sisson reopened GERONIMO-1564:
> ---
>
>
> This has been reopened as the proposed changes in the description
50 matches
Mail list logo
