+1
-David
> On Oct 10, 2022, at 2:23 AM, fpapon wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I submit Apache XBean 4.22 release to your vote.
>
> This release includes:
> - ASM 9.4 update
>
> Release Notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310312&version=12352368
>
>
easier
for us.
-David
>> On Jun 14, 2022, at 9:36 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> wrote:
>>
>> No blocker from me (minor note being some are already on git so don't start
>> back from svn ;))
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau | B
orget jira and site updates, we missed it by the past and hurts way
> later when we need to catch up.
>
> Le lun. 23 mai 2022 à 18:15, David Blevins a écrit :
> Vote passes with 6 +1s (4 binding)
>
> As noted in the other vote I didn't propose a final as we haven'
Jumping off of this thread, is there any openness to discussing moving this
code over to TomEE?
- http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager/trunk/
-
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-activation_2.0_spec/
-
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geroni
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 2:44 AM, Thomas Andraschko
> wrote:
>
> yep, we probably dont have enough commiters to maintain it
> but instead of freezing, shouldnt we maybe think about how to make it more
> attractive and easier to get more contributors?
> we have sooo many contributors in PrimeFaces a
> On May 24, 2022, at 6:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> You could have flags that enabled non-compliant behavior, but they would have
> to be off by default and require user action to turn them on.
To be clear I could have used a better word than "flags." You can have
Just wanted to echo what Jean-Louis said and add some details.
During the 20 years of these specs living in the JCP, the license requirements
stated that you must agree to ship your implementation with all defaults set to
the compliant state. You could have flags that enabled non-compliant beha
ed set and there are no additions/changes, etc. These are
separate from the com.sun.ts.tests.javamail tests.
In the past we would always ensure these tests before releasing.
-David
> On May 14, 2022, at 2:27 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> If I was thinking ahead I
+1 (binding)
-David
> On May 14, 2022, at 2:27 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> If I was thinking ahead I'd have put these both in the same staging repo and
> vote :)
>
> Staging Maven repository:
>
> - https://repository.apache.org/content/
, 2022, at 2:00 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> We're thinking to do a release on the TomEE side and this is one of the
> snapshot dependencies we have. I've prepped a 2.0.0-M1 with the idea that
> being a milestone it should be fairly non-controversial
My +1
-David
> On May 14, 2022, at 2:00 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> Hey All,
>
> We're thinking to do a release on the TomEE side and this is one of the
> snapshot dependencies we have. I've prepped a 2.0.0-M1 with the idea that
> being a milestone it sho
Hey All,
If I was thinking ahead I'd have put these both in the same staging repo and
vote :)
Staging Maven repository:
- https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1153/
The only change is conversion from javax to the jakarta namespace via
contributor Richard Zowall
Hey All,
We're thinking to do a release on the TomEE side and this is one of the
snapshot dependencies we have. I've prepped a 2.0.0-M1 with the idea that
being a milestone it should be fairly non-controversial to propose without a
heads up and I haven't checked the TCK status. I know we're n
This is very close. The dangers of A are not quite captured. Completely agree
with the dangers of B.
> On Apr 1, 2022, at 1:13 AM, Zowalla, Richard
> wrote:
>
> So we basically have to options (if I understand the discussion
> correctly):
>
> (A) Put some effort / resources into upgrade our
It would be great to see us have compliant MicroProfile implementations
somewhere in Apache; Geronimo, TomEE, CXF. It's still my personal preference
-- It makes very little sense to go through the effort to create a spec and
tck to enable multiple implementations that can compete/innovate and
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> No I guess it was right, "that are" ;) = fork @G only when we need to
> change some impl/default provider.
Right. A few things in my mind at least:
- Industry health: we (Apache) are the only other implementations of
Activation, Jav
> On Sep 4, 2019, at 6:04 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> No, this is an intended situation.
> When one fully passes the TCK then you get the EFSL. This 'removes' the
> copyleft nature of the EPL.
> The details are quite nested in the legal papers, but that's it basically.
>
> If we just upgrade o
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and there is no
> impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it sounds natural
This is my current thinking as well; maintain apis that are impls, use the EPL
asap, but not hold up the
TomEE 8.0.0 final release.
IMHO, we should try to be vote-ready on Friday. If we can get it done in that
time, cool.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro
> wrote:
>
> Tr
> On Aug 26, 2019, at 6:47 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We currently don't have any Activation 1.2 spec jar (api/impl).
> We need it for Jakarta EE 8 certification so I'll start creating a Geronimo
> spec jar for it.
Ok, it's been a yo-yo day on the Jakarta EE 8 side of the fen
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:11 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
> Here is the vote to let us get asm7 shade and a fix in the multiversion jar
> scanning.
>
> The dist (dev) area is
> On Oct 2, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> Otoh I'm totally fine either ways.
For clarity, though I made the suggestion, I'm fine either way as well.
There might be a few 4.10.x in our future, but it wouldn't be terrible.
I definitely see how a 5x change has the opportunity to make
; No worries, let's tackle this asm7 thing and we can even add other features ;)
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
> Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 00:01, David Blevins a écrit :
> Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile
> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> :) as usual with asm, looks ok but breaks several apps ;). But main point is:
> do we want to export as asm6 the real asm7 and fake the runtime it will work?
> If we want a smooth upgrade we can update asm6 module to have some of chang
> On Sep 30, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
> 3. keep it like that
> 4. use an "asm.*" package crossing fingers
>
> I'd love 4 but I fear it can create issue quickly when I see what java is
> becoming so, personally, i think 3 is safe but since we are at "that" moment
> I'd
Apparently I have to worry about becoming senile. I did an svn log and swore I
didn't see the commit in there. It's definitely there. I think my mind has
been warped by working with Git too long.
Sorry for the noise and thank for the release, sir!
--
David Blevins
http://t
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 6:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> I'd love to do a 4.x release of this code.
Hey Romain, is there any reason you pulled this code out of the XBean 4.10
release? Ideally we discuss these things as a community before tacking action.
Would you mind if I did
Never mind. I missed the result vote which was a separate thread. I'll put a
4.11 up.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Oct 1, 2018, at 11:37 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> Can we do a reroll with XBEAN-309 included? Sans that does an
Can we do a reroll with XBEAN-309 included? Sans that does anyone mind if I
immediately cut the XBean 4.11 now?
The work has been done for 2 months and I was hoping to get this into a TomEE
release soon. Hopefully TomEE 8 will be cut in the next days.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com
+1
Thank you for doing this, Romain!
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Sep 30, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> To enable BVal and TomEE releases, I'd like to release our validation spec
> b
All,
I updated the converter code in xbean-reflect to add support for JAX-RS style
string constructors and static factory methods. We weren't so clever to think
of this in 2006, but it definitely fits.
Moreover, I don't think we need half of the built-in Converter/PropertyEditor
implementatio
> best work under a dead website and brand, we aren't getting the strength and
> speed we need.
>
>
> As long as I feel understood, not pushed into doing something I don't want to
> do, I'm more than happy.
>
>
> -David
>
> > On Mar 18, 2
ther (TomEE and Geronimo). With
these false lines making everyone have to get commit twice and hiding our best
work under a dead website and brand, we aren't getting the strength and speed
we need.
As long as I feel understood, not pushed into doing something I don't want to
d
Two votes are up in the TomEE community on what to do with PR #123 (
https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/123 ). The first vote is if TomEE should
merge it. The second vote is if TomEE should attempt to extract it.
It was said 3-4 times in the discussion between both communities "geronimo will
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Are you against/-1ing g-jwt-auth?
I wouldn't do that, but it's also clear to me the discussion in this thread can
be significantly clearer. Objections were made that weren't resolved. The
discussion started as what do "we" do with
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
> 1. code will be at geronimo - whatever happens at tomee
As far as I understand the topic is still open and no git repos have been
created anywhere yet, is that right?
Is there anyone on the Geronimo side who would be open to col
In case that wasn't clear, gentle objection to moving this now.
If we can get this merged and at least a snapshot out, that'd be preferred.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:26 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> I
I'd lean towards the side of John Ament and Jon Gallimore. Can we merge this
at least?
-David
> On Mar 9, 2018, at 3:20 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> I don't think its a good idea to move TomEE code into Geronimo.
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:50 AM Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
>> If there
How about "MicroProfile component specification" ?
"first implementation of a MicroProfile component specification here at Apache"
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Sep 16, 2017, at 11:06 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>
> On Sep 15, 2017, at 5:43 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:36 PM David Blevins <mailto:david.blev...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:54 AM, John D. Ament > <mailto:johndam...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:54 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> as well as being the first release of a MicroProfile specification
> implementation here at Apache
Note TomEE is the first MP implementation at Apache. We intentionally defined
MP 1.0 as a subset of the WebProfile so all servers were by
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:42 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> I think i get your point of view. Ill note that i didnt participate in this
> vote but my POV is that we were only voting on item 1, retire the server.
>
> The fact that new components are coming in is a different item. If the goal
> is
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> This 'implied' 3rd block was actually never implied nor up for discussion.
> Not quite sure what I did word wrong to give you that impression.
> But rest ensurred that it was never intended that way!
>> Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed t
Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page.
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> > +1 for going forward
> >
> &
> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> +1 for going forward
>
> Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public
> perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the
> G-Server.
> To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retirin
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> The reason I'm hesitant to look at XBean, it seems to be focused on a single
> target (which is good for a sub-project). It would start to confuse things
> to make more stuff XBean.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by single target? I’
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 4:56 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> So I want to pick back up at least with fault tolerance. Would anyone be
> opposed to starting up a repo on it? I'm thinking of the name "Safeguard" so
> that it would either be "org.apache.safeguard" or
> "org.apache.geronimo.safeguard"
Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the same
version as the other xbean components. We could, but I think 1.0 would still
be fine.
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.4.
>
> Here is the staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Jun 15, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to call a vote to release our jpa 2.1 api jar.
>
> Here are:
> - the staging repo:
> https://repository.apach
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Here comes the release train again after fixing the build and a few missing
> licenses...
>
> * geronimo-annotation_1.2_spec
> * g
And Thank You for the vote!!
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Counting votes it seems it passed:
>
> +1s: Alan D Cabrera, David Blevins, Romain Manni-Bucau
> +0: Jean-Baptiste
On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> PS: ones having identified some issues would be welcomed to at least
> open a jira explaining it and potentially proposing a fix if you
> already have an idea to not forget them for 4.1
Nicely phrased. And +1 on the welcome nudges.
-Davi
On Aug 20, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> The main changes are:
[...]
> skip java.* classes since we'll not get their bytecode for sure
> (protected method if needed)
I'm not a fan of hard coding filtering inside the AnnotationFinder itself, so
+1 under the condition that we rem
>
>
> 2014-05-26 23:21 GMT+02:00 David Blevins :
> Anyone still able to access this? For some reason this no longer shows up in
> my Google Analytics account.
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:32 PM, David Blevins
> wrote:
> Setup google analytics on all our space
Anyone still able to access this? For some reason this no longer shows up
in my Google Analytics account.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:32 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Setup google analytics on all our spaces and added everyone who's a
> committer who I could easily find a gmail
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On May 20, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a vote for xbean 3.18 release.
>
> The main changes are:
> 1) removing asm5 from xbean-reflect
> 2) more co
+1
On Mar 31, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a vote for an xbean 3.17 release.
>
> The main change is the removing of asm3 and 4 shades and the
> replacement with asm5 one to be able to be compatible with java 8.
>
> Binaries:
>
> https://repository.apach
+1
-David
On Nov 25, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Good evening!
>
> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing the geronimo jbatch 1.0 API.
>
> The API is already used in Apache BatchEE and passes the JSR-352 JBatch TCK.
>
> The staging repo is
> https://repository.apache.org/content
Ok. Here's my +1.
Vote passes with 8 +1s and no other votes:
David Blevins
Alan Cabrera
Romain Manni-Bucau
Dain Sundstrom
Hiram Chirino
Jean-Louis Monteiro
Jarek Gawor
Mark Struberg
-David
On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:55 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Ok, release rolled!
>
> Binari
Ok, release rolled!
Binaries:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-086/
Tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/tags/xbean-3.15/
72 hours for voting! :)
-David
Anyone object if I roll an XBean 3.1.5 release?
-David
+1 for genesis
+1 for xbean. The presence of a snapshot repository declaration is fine, IMO.
I built both genesis and xbean tags against a clean maven repo and no snapshots
were downloaded.
-David
On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> +1 for genesis.
>
> -1 for xbean. Unless
On Jan 31, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I'm currently trying to fix a xbean compilation error on java7 platforms.
>
> Thus I stumbled over a very deep chain in our poms. There are 4
> layers of geronimo.genesis parent poms. And the top of them still point
> to
+1
-David
+1
-David
On Jul 3, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Forrest Xia wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> With correction of repositoryList URL, here we have the 3rd release candidate
> for vote. Please help vote at your earliest convenient time.
>
> The server code up for vote is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/rep
Ok, closing vote with 5 +1s and no other votes.
+1s:
Forrest Xia
David Blevins
Kevan Miller
Alan Cabrera
Shawn Jiang
-David
On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:13 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Binaries are up for consideration.
>
> Here's the staging repo:
>
> https://repositor
Excellent. My +1
-David
On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:13 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Binaries are up for consideration.
>
> Here's the staging repo:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-032/org/apache/xbean/
>
> I assume this is what was
Binaries are up for consideration.
Here's the staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-032/org/apache/xbean/
I assume this is what was being asked for to run on the 3.0-beta branch.
The tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/tags/xbean-
Alright, might be easier to just put the release up for vote and give people
the time to do what they need.
Rolling
-David
On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:45 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> It sounds like there's willingness, but I'm not sure who is doing what and
> when.
>
>
n when the change into 3.0-beta
> branch.
>
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
> I would like to see a full run of geronimo tck result before the release.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 6:53 PM, David Blevi
Hoping to get time to do an xbean release today or tomorrow.
Let me know if there's any reason to wait.
-David
If at all possible it would be great to get a re-roll with these two:
r1215562 | dblevins | 2011-12-17 11:49:40 -0800 (Sat, 17 Dec 2011) | 2 lines
XBEAN-198: Support for proposed @javax.annotation.Metatype an
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 3.9
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For
Components: finder
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 3.9
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure
>>>>> I'm happy to volunteer to do the release work, if that's any help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2011 7:15 AM, "Shawn Jiang" wrote:
>>>>>> Anyway, let's start to do this and figure
t;
> 2011/8/25 David Blevins
> Checked in a potential fix for the bean validation tests that fail with the
> following issue:
>
>java.lang.NullPointerException
>at javax.xml.validation.SchemaFactory.newSchema(SchemaFactory.java:626)
>at
> org.apache.bva
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Blevins updated GERONIMO-6122:
Summary: Support Stateless and Singleton EJB as JAX-RS root resource
classes, providers
Checked in a potential fix for the bean validation tests that fail with the
following issue:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at javax.xml.validation.SchemaFactory.newSchema(SchemaFactory.java:626)
at
org.apache.bval.jsr303.xml.ValidationParser.getSchema(ValidationParser.java:1
nch, not current trunk. I guess I should investigate since I've
> been working with that code some more
>
> david jencks
>
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Any info on why this was removed? Guessing it was just
On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:45 AM, dblev...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: dblevins
>> Date: Mon Aug 22 04:45:07 2011
>> New Revision: 1160106
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1160106&view=rev
>> Log:
>> GERONIMO-6117: OpenWebBeansPlug
)
Components: OpenEJB, OpenWebBeans
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 3.0-M2
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
David,
Any info on why this was removed? Guessing it was just a side effect of a
merge.
(related jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-5888)
-David
On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:19 PM, djen...@apache.org wrote:
> Modified:
> geronimo/server/trunk/framework/modules/geronimo-kernel/src
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Blevins resolved GERONIMO-6090.
-
Resolution: Fixed
> Don't scan for EE Injections in a CDI application in
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13069332#comment-13069332
]
David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-6090:
-
Checked in a fix, seems to do
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13069315#comment-13069315
]
David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-6090:
-
CDI TCK got a little gro
oject: Geronimo
Issue Type: Bug
Security Level: public (Regular issues)
Components: deployment
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 3.0-M2
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on
(Regular issues)
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 3.0-M2
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
+1
On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
> This is a single vote for releasing 6 new Geronimo bundles that are OSGi
> versions of other jar files. The wrappered jars are
>
>woodstox-core-asl 4.1.1_1
>jaxb-impl 2.2.3-1_1
>scout 1.2.3_1
>saaj-impl 1.3.8_1
>axis
+1
On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Note: This is my first release ever so provide guidance where needed.
>
> The release of Geronimo Transaction Manager version 2.2.2 is to ship
> OpenEJB 3.2.0 as it currently depends on 2.2-SNAPSHOT.
>
> The fixes in this release
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:54 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> testSpecialized
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6038?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13065672#comment-13065672
]
David Blevins commented on GERONIMO-6038:
-
public class Cruiser implem
On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:54 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> testSpecializedBeanNotInstantiated(org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.inheritance.specialization.enterprise.EnterpriseBeanSpecializationIntegrationTest)
>
> testSpecializingBeanHasBindingsOfSpecializedAndSpecializingBean(org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests
Likely the snapshots are out of date. Poking buildbot to publish new ones
now
-David
On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Rex Wang wrote:
> Not me.. anyone see this?
>
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/openejb/jee/Application
> at
> org.apache.geronimo.j2ee.deployment.EARConfigB
)
Reporter: David Blevins
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Axis 1.4_2-SNAPSHOT
---
Key: GERONIMO-6071
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6071
Project: Geronimo
Issue Type: Sub-task
Security Level: public (Regular issues)
Reporter: David Blevins
Axis2 1.7.0_1-SNAPSHOT
--
Key: GERONIMO-6070
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6070
Project: Geronimo
Issue Type: Sub-task
Security Level: public (Regular issues)
Reporter: David
JavaMail 1.8.3-SNAPSHOT
---
Key: GERONIMO-6069
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6069
Project: Geronimo
Issue Type: Sub-task
Security Level: public (Regular issues)
Reporter: David
Tomcat 7.0.18.0-SNAPSHOT
Key: GERONIMO-6068
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6068
Project: Geronimo
Issue Type: Sub-task
Security Level: public (Regular issues)
Reporter: David
: David Blevins
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
1 - 100 of 1688 matches
Mail list logo
