These seem to be good points to me.
Regards,
Alan
Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
Hi all,
I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as
many of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am
a big fan of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container
f
Nothing with the actual association itself. Die hard OpenEJB fans want
to use OpenEJB w/out the usual Geronimo accoutrements. As I mentioned
below, Dain is working on this.
Regards,
Alan
John Sisson wrote:
Alan,
What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association
with Gero
Hi All
Jeremy I agree with, and this current close relation to Geronimo delayed the development on OpenEJB, specially when the build of Geronimo is not going well as OpenEJB now required APIs from Geronimo which I don't know why they don't separate it as a common JEE code which can be used into ei
Hi Jeremy,
Sorry for the confusion, I probably should have started a new thread for
this mail as the mail I replied to was a mail I missed from months back
from a vote thread. The vote is actually over ( see dblevins mail at
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg26078.html
Hi all, I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as many of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am a big fan of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container for Geronimo, things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users. For example,
Alan,
What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
Geronimo?
Regards,
John
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
always concerned about its
It should be more than possible to have a decoupled OpenEJB codebase that plugs into Geronimo while at the same time have these projects exists in the same community.--jasonOn Jul 2, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be separ
On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Jason, IIUC, Mohammed is asking if it is not better to have OpenEJB separate from Geronimo, not together. Your plus one seems to be at odds w/ your subsequent statements. Am I misunderstanding something?Sorry... my +1 is for the proposal.I've s
Everyone, please note that Mohammed is responding to an email from
December 3, 2005. The vote is *over*.
Here is that thread for reference: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
t=11335933571&r=1&w=2
If there are questions on the status of OpenEJB's move to the
incubator, the following thre
I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo. However, it
is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
strong reliance
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Mohammed Nour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
Geronimo, as
to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
It is and it will end up as
Jason, IIUC, Mohammed is asking if it is not better to have OpenEJB
separate from Geronimo, not together. Your plus one seems to be at
odds w/ your subsequent statements. Am I misunderstanding something?
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
+1
Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geroni
Ok, +1 from me as I don't remember I have already voted.
Dave, when will the tally taken?
Jacek
On 7/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 - Don't think my vote counts...but I am showing my support anyways ;-)
Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't i
+1 - Don't think my vote counts...but I am showing my support anyways ;-)
Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo,
> as to have it work inside or outside Ge
On 7/2/06, Mohammed Nour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo, as
to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
It is and it will end up as such. It's an independent
+1Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geronimo developers, so it really makes sense to bring these two codebases together.I don't see any problem with OpenEJB coming together with Geronimo regarding to allow others to use the OpenEJB core w/o the rest of Geronimo. I believe that one of the key driv
Hi All...
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
On 12/3/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and
with whom? Sun?
On Dec 5, 2005, at 2:09 PM, David Blevins wrote:
We'd still like to have them, obviously. I'm optimistic something
could be worked out.
-David
On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I'm for this, but quick question - what would you do with the
"standalone
We'd still like to have them, obviously. I'm optimistic something
could be worked out.
-David
On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I'm for this, but quick question - what would you do with the
"standalone server" distros? IIRC, you can't distribute anything
called "EJB"
I'm for this, but quick question - what would you do with the
"standalone server" distros? IIRC, you can't distribute anything
called "EJB" outside of the full tested container stack as per the
spec license...
geir
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:00 AM, David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers h
+1
Gianny
David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
during incubation
[ ]
+1
John
David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
during incubation
[ ] +1
+1
David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB during
incubation
[ ] +1 = I su
+1
On 12/3/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenE
+1
Regards,
Alan
David Blevins wrote, On 12/2/2005 11:00 PM:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of Ope
+1On 12/3/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become aGeronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJBduring incubat
+1
On 12/3/05 2:00 AM, "David Blevins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sp
+1 from me.
On 12/3/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor
David Blevins wrote:
[X] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
sub-project of Geronimo
Jacek
+1
-dain
On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:00 PM, David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJ
+ 1 - I can't wait for my apache.org email. ;)On 12/3/05, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:On 12/3/05, David Blevins <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> [X] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a> sub-project of GeronimoBruce--perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROT
On 12/3/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [X] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> sub-project of Geronimo
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61Ehttp://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org
+1
David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB during
incubation
[ ] +1 = I supp
+1
Sounds very reasonable to me.
--jason
On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:00 PM, David Blevins wrote:
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Ge
The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
during incubation
[ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor
35 matches
Mail list logo
