+1
Philip
On 5/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/15/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have uploaded a version of ServiceMix 3.1.1 in the standard repo
> for you to review. See
> http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/servicemix-311.html
> for all the links an
+1
On 10/16/06, Grant McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 from me too
-Original Message-
From: Ramon Buckland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2006 9:54 AM
To: servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Servicemix 3.0.1
+1 from me
On Tue, 2006
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-674?page=all ]
Philip Dodds resolved SM-674.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Applied change to 3.0 branch and trunk to change parameters to read-write.
> jbi:installComponent (and others) fails authentication agai
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-674?page=all ]
Philip Dodds reopened SM-674:
-
Unable to set read-only parameters
> jbi:installComponent (and others) fails authentication against default SM
> con
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-674?page=all ]
Philip Dodds resolved SM-674.
-
Resolution: Fixed
The problem was the lack of defaulting in the ANT tasks , this has been
switched so that default username, passwords are smx/smx.
Note that for
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-619?page=all ]
Philip Dodds closed SM-619.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Implemented
> Allow the Maven JBI plugin to inject a default bootstrap if one isnt'
>
ceMix
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: tooling
Affects Versions: 3.0
Reporter: Philip Dodds
Priority: Minor
Fix For: 3.0.1, 3.1
If a jbi-component doesn't specify the bootstrap parameter to name its
bootstrap class the Maven JBI plu
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-616?page=all ]
Philip Dodds closed SM-616.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Added servicemix-saxon-xslt-service-unit and
servicemix-saxon-xquery-service-unit
> Archetypes for the servicemix-saxon service eng
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-591?page=all ]
Philip Dodds closed SM-591.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Refactored to add the support for the handling of Classloaders from within the
ServiceUnit, if a ServiceUnit implementation is going to provide Java
: Improvement
Affects Versions: 3.0
Reporter: Philip Dodds
Fix For: 3.1
Add a getConfigurationClassLoader to the ServiceUnit class in
org.apache.servicemix.common. This can be used to ensure that is a ServiceUnit
is going to contain Java Code then it needs to ensure
+1
On 9/20/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have told Bull to submit a Software Grant so that we can fill
a IP Clearance for Cimero donation.
We need to officially vote to accept the donation, which is the
reason for this vote.
[ ] +1 accept Cimero code donation
[ ] 0 No opini
We could always go for ServiceReMix
P
On 9/12/06, Terry Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh i don't care about my suggestion really, just trying to get us to
> think outside the box.
Well, here are a few that spring to mind to get the creative process
rolling:
InTheMix
MixCentral
MixDepot
+1
On 9/11/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've fixed the missing headers files that Hiram pointed out, so I'm starting
a new vote.
I have uploaded the 3.0-incubating release at
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository
Distributions are available at
http://peopl
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-563?page=all ]
Philip Dodds resolved SM-563.
-
Fix Version/s: 3.0-M3
Resolution: Fixed
Fix for SM-563 - its not pretty but it does work - basically the maven-project
is not maintaining the order of the
sure about stateful POJO's in the ESB?
I would like to see what people think in a large context about this?
P
On 8/21/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you could reuse the EJB3 annotations for stateless / stateful metadata?
On 8/21/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Great stuff Philip!
> > >
> > > More feedback as I start digesting this fully and reading this whole
> > > thread but my first reaction is could we try to stick to standard
> > > annotations where
* closer to jbi
whereas jsr181 is good for web service stuff (completely hiding jbi,
doing xml/java marshalling, rpc, etc..).
Stating that provides imho a clear difference between the two components.
On 8/21/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guillaume,
>
> I agree that w
like the
idea that URI's might play into that integration!
Sorry for this long email ;)
On 8/18/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have knocked up some thoughts on a JBI POJO engine that could be
> used to provide a mechanism for annotating POJO specifically
I have knocked up some thoughts on a JBI POJO engine that could be
used to provide a mechanism for annotating POJO specifically for more
messaging level operations that the JSR181 service engine is aimed
for.
The idea is to provide a simple framework to replace the Spring Client
Toolkit that is n
following command from the command line:
>>
>> mvn -Dmaven.test.skip=true -Pstep1 install
>>
>> After that I am getting the previously posted set of outputs.
>>
>> Am I missing something in the process?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Mahbubur.
>>
mmand line:
>
>mvn -Dmaven.test.skip=true -Pstep1 install
>
> After that I am getting the previously posted set of outputs.
>
> Am I missing something in the process?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mahbubur.
>
>
> Philip Dodds-2 wrote:
> >
> > Can you run mvn
mmand from the command line:
mvn -Dmaven.test.skip=true -Pstep1 install
After that I am getting the previously posted set of outputs.
Am I missing something in the process?
Thanks.
Mahbubur.
Philip Dodds-2 wrote:
>
> Can you run mvn -Dmaven.test.skip=true -Pstep1 install from the ro
e help will truly be appreciated.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Mahbubur
Mahbubur wrote:
>
>
> Thanks a lot. I will try it. I truly appreciate the help.
>
> Mahbub.
>
>
>
> Philip Dodds-2 wrote:
>>
>> See the Building information on the website -
>>
>>
Versions: 3.0-M2
Reporter: Philip Dodds
Priority: Minor
Part of the tooling for service units is the use of the serviceUnitAnalyzer
which is in place to try and generate the services elements of the service
units which can be used by tooling to show the available consumes
+1 for having everthing sync up on 3.0
P
On 8/8/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was wondering if we should change the maven plugin / archetype version
to
be in sync with the container / components.
Currently, everything as the same release cycle, so I do not really see
the
poi
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-517?page=all ]
Philip Dodds resolved SM-517.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Implemented new servicemix-shared library
> Re-structure the common/soap shared librar
-common, servicemix-soap
Affects Versions: 3.0-M2
Reporter: Philip Dodds
Fix For: 3.0-M3
Re-organize the common and soap libraries so they are normal jar packaging and
then create a new shared library called servicemix-shared that will have both
libraries embedded.
This
The new goal was something I started, I should be able to finish it up and
try and get it back in today :)
P
On 8/4/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, for examples not using the std JBI packaging, I though that we could
have a new goal in the
maven plugin to start a servicem
I believe the only XML change after refactoring the class names is to change
the pom.xml entries for the component class name (towards the end)
P
On 8/3/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you have renamed the file, where is your problem ?
Using eclipse, you can easily refactor t
at the dependent jar servicemix-components
which
is
referenced in the pom for the loan-broker-lw-su SU is not included in the
SU.
(Wether this particular one should be or nor is discussed in another
thread,
so ...)
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 8/1/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
The manve tooling now does all the packaging for SA and SU's :
see
http://www.servicemix.org/site/working-with-service-units.html
http://www.servicemix.org/site/working-with-service-assemblies.html
The problem with the xbean classpath has been discussed a little, and I
think we are trying to
ven plugins, but not for plugins using
> "extensions" :(
> You need to do
>mvn -N install
>cd tooling
>mvn install
>cd ..
>mvn install
>
> At least, it is my understanding on how maven currently works.
>
>
> On 7/28/06, Philip Dodds <[EM
be or nor is discussed in another
thread,
so ...)
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 8/1/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sounds good :)
>
> P
>
> On 8/1/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/1/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAI
te:
On 7/24/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Before pushing 3.0 out of the door I think we need to address :
>
> 1/ The project structure so that we can build core/components and
tooling
> independently
> 2/ The packaging so we can create clean packages
cd tooling
mvn install
cd ..
mvn install
At least, it is my understanding on how maven currently works.
On 7/28/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One note on the plugin - with the re-org the build order would succeed
if
> you built core first - the tooling
One note on the plugin - with the re-org the build order would succeed if
you built core first - the tooling - then everything else since nothing in
core requires the plugin
P
On 7/28/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/28/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
I put together a basic plan (with some help from Guillaume), here
http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/Source+Structure
The purpose of the new structure it two allow cleaner separation between:
1/ The JBI Container
2/ Deployables such as shared libraries/BC's/SE's
3/ Platform specific packag
What about extending the endpoint in the Service Unit?
P
On 7/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/26/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually that is a good point, I wonder whether we should depreciate
the
> HTTP bindings from the compo
Actually that is a good point, I wonder whether we should depreciate the
HTTP bindings from the components then?
And I'll try and give you a hand on the documentation :)
P
On 7/26/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/26/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
system
directory
to store it). I think in this case, it would be easier to just start a
full
servicemix container
and put the components and assemblies in the install/deploy dir, where
they
would automatically be
installed.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 7/26/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTE
ere is no support for installing components and
deploying
SUs from the servicemix.xml configuration file, but I think that the
current
way
is easier to deal with.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 7/26/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With these new Container Service Engines approach
eaner separtion of
core functionality, and also makes adding components to a product/ESB or SOA
simple.
P
On 7/23/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/24/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Its a good point - though I think a lot of people at attaching
t
ss SAR) folks later on. So we
should be able to make a POJO thingy first then make it an MBean/GBean
later.
On 7/25/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the idea of JNDI factories is great, and making it workable in
> other application servers would be a blessing fo
I think the idea of JNDI factories is great, and making it workable in
other application servers would be a blessing for people trying to
integration from web applications etc.
Offering a simple interface that allows a factory to get an instance of an
endpont to interact with would be an interes
ease ;)
But we must first agree on that...
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 7/24/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1 for getting a roadmap in place, though until we have a clear set of
> stuf
> that we want in place should be set a release date?
>
> P
>
+1 for getting a roadmap in place, though until we have a clear set of stuf
that we want in place should be set a release date?
P
On 7/24/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I' d like to start a discussion about ServiceMix roadmap for 3.0.
IMHO, we should release a 3.0 asap, and I w
I have been working through the lw-container, JSR181 and wanted to share
some thoughts on these service engines.
I'm wondering whether then should be service engines, since they each
require a additions to the classpath I'm wondering if they shouldn't be
Binding Component Archetypes. I suppose
I have been hitting problems with the Maven plugin in situations where I
need to work out the dependencies and then other components outside the
scope of the component being deployed are using the dependencies that this
component wishes to stop.
When using the hot-deploy directory ServiceMix is a
ents and service engines.
alex
Philip Dodds wrote:
> Its certainly a good point, so far most of the components have been
> pretty
> self-centred and the specification is purposefully vague.
>
> Perhaps it is time to start looking at message sterotypes of some kind
to
> allow people u
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-474?page=all ]
Philip Dodds resolved SM-474.
-
Fix Version/s: 3.0-M3
Resolution: Fixed
Added validation to the DesriptorFactory
> Add validation code in for jbi descriptor to enforce the inclusion
I have been going through the testcases and we have a failure in
org.apache.servicemix.jbi.installation.ComponentAssemblyInstallationTest
Seems that the InstallerMBeanImpl assumes that every component must have a
bootstrap and the test cases don't.
Wanted to bounce this around, should we throw
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-486?page=all ]
Philip Dodds resolved SM-486.
-
Fix Version/s: 3.0-M3
Resolution: Fixed
Applied and thankyou for the contribution
> MessagePropertySetter
> -
>
>
Ramon,
Sorry for the delay - however we have added the new component - thanks for
your contribution - keep 'em coming ;)
Thanks
Philip
On 7/16/06, Ramon Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to review this yet ?
Would be great to get some feedback
https://issues.apache
I have been thinking over the restructuring that we have been discussing and
I'm wondering whether we should look at create a couple of flavours of
distribution, so that in place of a big install we have:
Server - Just the Core Server (no components)
Server/Components - Core Server and Component
You might want to check the logic you have, a common mistake is not
completing your exchanges:
http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/Why+does+my+sender+not+send
also check out the ComponentSupport
http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/Component+helper+classes
and also worth a look is the P
hink we can live with the above steps to build servicemix.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 7/7/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been wondering about the possible restructuring of the ServiceMix
> code tree and build to enable cleaner separation, smaller/quicker
builds,
that you pick the projects and it assemblys them for you on your
machine from the repos - then you could re-open the installer and choose
update?
P
On 7/7/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cool idea :)
P
On 7/7/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/7/0
Cool idea :)
P
On 7/7/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/7/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah - actually we might want to do something like :
>
> * container
> * core tooling (just currently the jbi-maven-plugin)
> * components
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-481?page=comments#action_36524 ]
Philip Dodds commented on SM-481:
-
Added new test to org.apache.servicemix.http.HttpProviderTest.java which has a
640k message on an InOut with a provider. The test passed
+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
Anyone had any thought on putting together a remote shutdown script? and
switching the startup to launch in the background? Just wondered as I'm
doing some bits on the tooling and I'll need a clean way of shutting down
the server.
P
+1
Philip
On 2/2/06, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/2/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have received the generous donation of a complete and working BPE
> > engine to the ServiceMix project...
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-d
Sounds like a good idea, have you looked at using the izpack plugin for
maven to do an installer?
P
On 1/25/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The tooling\servicemix-web module is used as a demo of ServiceMix
> integration in a web-app.
> I'd like to move it to the distribution s
roach, I'll try and get
that in place in the next week :)
Cheers
P
On 1/17/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Currently there are three projects...not sure quite where to put them,
> basically they are:
>
> servicemix-packaging-descriptors - The packaging des
cription="Default destination" mep="robustInOnly"/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So the document would be reusable for both design time and deployment.
>
>
>
> My team is using a similar approach. We created a UML 2.0 pro
We've been working on a re-usable deployment plugin for eclipse to try and simplify the process of create components and actually making them re-usable. The basic idea is fairly simple, when you build you JBI component, whether it be a binding component or a service engine you include a
compone
66 matches
Mail list logo
