Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/07/2005 01:59:38
PM:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> > I was going for a pick one response. As in:
> >
> > 1) Separate builds (one jetty build and one tomcat build)
> > 2) One build (both jetty and tomcat in the same build) with jetty
Dain,
I sent a mail to the cglib project asking for them to post their jar to
the maven repo, but I haven't got any response. Does anyone have direct
contact with someone who can do this?
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7622906&forum_id=12922
John
Dain Sundstrom <[EMAI
Sing Li wrote:
First example, apache-fied, maven'ized, tested, and
attached as JIRA patch at:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-730
Second example, at:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-731
Thanks for the examples. I'll be looking into them and applying soon.
I'm wo
First example, apache-fied, maven'ized, tested, and
attached as JIRA patch at:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-730
Second example, at:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-731
I'm working on converting the third one, EAR with CMP
EJB (EJB QL). But don't know what to do w
+1
On 7/8/05, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Blevins wrote, On 7/7/2005 8:51 PM:
>
> > 1) Separate builds (one jetty build and one tomcat build)
> >
> >
> +1
>
> > 2) One build (both jetty and tomcat in the same build) with jetty as
> > default.
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
> Alan
David Blevins wrote, On 7/7/2005 8:51 PM:
1) Separate builds (one jetty build and one tomcat build)
+1
2) One build (both jetty and tomcat in the same build) with jetty as default.
Regards,
Alan
David Blevins wrote:
1) Separate builds (one jetty build and one tomcat build)
+1. It is because people won't have to change anything to start working
with Geronimo. When they've got more comfortable with it, they surely
will build it themselves and choose whatever they wish.
-David
Wont you have to change both the runtime and builder parts, thus
needing 2 edits? Also, the standalone deployer is in just one plan
how would you switch the builder in it?
I like this idea best so far, so despite these problems I hope we can
find a way to make it work.
david jencks
On J
Here is an idea for #2
If we pull Jetty out into its own plan...the user just needs to edit the
config.list file. The j2ee-server-jetty-plan.xml can be the default in
the config.list...with j2ee-server-tomcat-plan.xml commented out. If
the user wants to swap, they just edit the config.li
+1 for #1. If you go for #2...we need to make it easy to
comment/uncomment, etc. IMHO, the less technically astute will not like
option #2...as they won't necessarily like to have to build an assembly.
OTOH, if there is a way to easily activate one or the other via a config
file w/o the need
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> I was going for a pick one response. As in:
>
> 1) Separate builds (one jetty build and one tomcat build)
> 2) One build (both jetty and tomcat in the same build) with jetty as default.
I vote "whatever's easiest" -- you'll get both options bo
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:32:03AM +0200, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>
> >So what does the group want?
> >
> > 1) Separate builds
> > 2) Jetty as the default
>
> Both tested against TCK.
I was going for a pick one response. As in:
1) Separate builds (one jetty build and
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> TranQL is a Codehaus project so it is down to the despots, currently me.
> The barrier to entry is not high but so far I've not seen anything
> except that problematic patch.
Okay, sorry. It's clear I misunderstood the relationship between
the
On 6/07/2005 6:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I didn't -1 it, I said it wasn't a pre-req, as in I think we can release
M4 without it.
As for a technical reason, where's the code? Last I saw was a patch for
TranQL that caused a circular dependency and s
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I didn't -1 it, I said it wasn't a pre-req, as in I think we can release
M4 without it.
As for a technical reason, where's the code? Last I saw was a patch for
TranQL that caused a circular dependency and screwed up the IP. If ther
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I didn't -1 it, I said it wasn't a pre-req, as in I think we can release
> M4 without it.
>
> As for a technical reason, where's the code? Last I saw was a patch for
> TranQL that caused a circular dependency and screwed up the IP. If there
> is somethi
Okay, thanks.
For the webapp and ejb examples, I will:
1. apache-fy the source code
2. refactor them to base from applications/demo/src of
the build source tree
3. try to convert the current Ant build scripts to
maven (will take a little time - maven newbie here)
4. test with the latest build
... and please capture this process somewhere on the wiki so that we
don't have to re-invent it all next time :-)
David Blevins wrote:
So, JavaOne is over, the 4th of July holiday is almost over. Let's start the
release talk.
Minimally, to get M4 out the door, we need to:
- Create somethi
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
like to resolve that before the branch. Other than that, I'm fine to go
ahead with the 2
I am working on removing openorb and the tools jar hack right now.
I also think we need to update cglib to the new fully released
version instead of my custom build.
-dain
On Jul 4, 2005, at 10:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we try to remove theToolsJarHack before M4?
Dain said "
On 7/5/2005 1:33 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm not a big fan of performing development on a branch that, IMO,
should be frozen for QA. I'm not sure if that's what people are
proposing but, I just wanted to say that.
Me, either, but wondering what we do if a fix pop
toby cabot wrote:
OK, what package should they be in? org.apache.geronimo.demo.ra?
o.a.g.apps.ra or even the one you proposed. You can pick the one you
wish as long as it's o.a.g.apps.ra ;)
Jacek
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:24:06AM +0200, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> If it's enough legally, I'll add them
> to the repo to the applications dir.
OK, what package should they be in? org.apache.geronimo.demo.ra?
On Jul 4, 2005, at 10:26 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty or Tomcat the
default container, and whether to provide separate builds for each.
I think we should try to do separate builds for Jetty and Tomcat if
it isn't too much pain.
Also
On Jul 4, 2005, at 9:38 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Anything I missed?
SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
Right. Missed that one for M3 IIRC.
Branch so that M4 c
On 5/07/2005 1:55 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
like to resolve that before the branch. Other than that, I'm fi
+1
I like the idea to branch at the beginning and merge back any bug fixes
if need be.
Thanks,
Gianny
On 5/07/2005 12:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Do we have a consensus that we should branch at the beginning of the release
cycle instead of at the end as we have done in the past?
If so, go
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm not a big fan of performing development on a branch that, IMO,
should be frozen for QA. I'm not sure if that's what people are
proposing but, I just wanted to say that.
Me, either, but wondering what we do if a fix pops up, shall we get rid
of the M4 branch and do
David Blevins wrote:
So what does the group want?
1) Separate builds
2) Jetty as the default
Both tested against TCK.
-David
Jacek
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
+1 on TCK testing - actually -1 to releasing unless we pass all tests.
+1
Jeremy
Jacek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we try to remove theToolsJarHack before M4?
Dain said "The tools jar hack will be needed until we delete the OpenORB
stub/
tie compiler. I should have this change committed in the next few
days, and then we can remove the hack code."
Kind of spoils the new s
Jeff Genender wrote:
+1 for Jetty as default (at least until Tomcat does a TCK dance)...but I
think we should have a seperate build for each.
+1
Jacek
toby cabot wrote:
I've got some trivial resource adapter code/descriptors if that's
interesting to anyone. It worked with Geronimo back in April, if you
want I can make sure it works with the trunk and ship it to Jacek.
+1.
Since its your work and we're very concerned with any donation and it
Sing Li wrote:
I have two examples, tested up to the most recent
build, that may require only minor mods for this.
1. Web app - JSP, JSTL, with servlet
2. EJB - stateless session (local), entity
Jacek - please let me know if they may be of interest,
and I'll email them to you.
But of course!
On 7/4/05, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:26:40PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty or Tomcat the
> > default container, and whether to provide separate builds for each.
> >
>
> So what does the group wan
Should we try to remove theToolsJarHack before M4?
Dain said "The tools jar hack will be needed until we delete the OpenORB
stub/
tie compiler. I should have this change committed in the next few
days, and then we can remove the hack code."
Kind of spoils the new startup output :-(
John
Bo
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:53:22PM -0400, toby cabot wrote:
> I've got some trivial resource adapter code/descriptors if that's
> interesting to anyone. It worked with Geronimo back in April, if you
> want I can make sure it works with the trunk and ship it to Jacek.
Go for it.
>
> Sounds like
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:55:11PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > > I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
> > > currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
> > > like to resolve that before the branc
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
> > currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
> > like to resolve that before the branch. Other than that, I'm fine to go
> > ahead with the 24 hour notic
I've got some trivial resource adapter code/descriptors if that's
interesting to anyone. It worked with Geronimo back in April, if you
want I can make sure it works with the trunk and ship it to Jacek.
Sounds like we're well on the way to a nice Geronimo/J2EE "Hello,
World" example application.
I'm not a big fan of performing development on a branch that, IMO,
should be frozen for QA. I'm not sure if that's what people are
proposing but, I just wanted to say that.
Regards,
Alan
On 7/4/2005 7:46 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Do we have a consensus that we should branch at the beginning
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
like to resolve that before the branch. Other than that, I'm fine to go
ahead with the 24 hour notice.
I don't think this is a p
David Blevins wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:26:40PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Also, we need to decide whether we're planning to run the entire
TCK on the candidate configuration(s).
I'm certainly willing to take a chunck of the TCK do that. If others
are also willing, we can divide
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:57:45PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
> currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
> like to resolve that before the branch. Other than that, I'm fine to go
> ahead with th
I want to get the key generator changes in for M4. However, I'm
currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL. So I'd
like to resolve that before the branch. Other than that, I'm fine to go
ahead with the 24 hour notice.
Oh, I think we also have a problem where
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:26:40PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty or Tomcat the
> default container, and whether to provide separate builds for each.
>
So what does the group want?
1) Separate builds
2) Jetty as the default
-David
Do we have a consensus that we should branch at the beginning of the release
cycle instead of at the end as we have done in the past?
If so, going to put out an email titled "M4 - 24 hour notice of branch", which
I think would be a good release practice.
-David
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:15:34
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:26:40PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> Also, we need to decide whether we're planning to run the entire
> TCK on the candidate configuration(s).
>
I'm certainly willing to take a chunck of the TCK do that. If others
are also willing, we can divide up the sectio
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:28:56PM -0600, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1 for Jetty as default (at least until Tomcat does a TCK dance)...but I
> think we should have a seperate build for each.
Agreed on both points.
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty
+1 for Jetty as default (at least until Tomcat does a TCK dance)...but I
think we should have a seperate build for each.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty or Tomcat the
default container, and whether to provide separate builds for each.
Also, we need to
I guess we should also decide whether to make Jetty or Tomcat the
default container, and whether to provide separate builds for each.
Also, we need to decide whether we're planning to run the entire
TCK on the candidate configuration(s).
Aaron
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, David Blevins
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 06:38:23PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >
> >>David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>>Anything I missed?
> >>>
> >>
> >>SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
> >
> >
> >Right. Miss
David Blevins wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Anything I missed?
SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
Right. Missed that one for M3 IIRC.
Branch so that M4 can stabilize whilst other changes are being made.
Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/07/2005 10:22:36 AM:
> David Blevins wrote:
> >
> > Anything I missed?
> >
>
> SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
>
+1 on SNAPSHOT elimination if possible.
John
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 04:27:41PM -0700, Sing Li wrote:
> I have two examples, tested up to the most recent
> build, that may require only minor mods for this.
>
> 1. Web app - JSP, JSTL, with servlet
> 2. EJB - stateless session (local), entity
>
> Jacek - please let me know if they may be of
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >Anything I missed?
> >
>
> SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
Right. Missed that one for M3 IIRC.
> Branch so that M4 can stabilize whilst other changes are being made.
We do for every
David Blevins wrote:
Anything I missed?
SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
Documentation update.
Branch so that M4 can stabilize whilst other changes are being made.
Acceptance test process - how do we know what works (need to avoid a
broken release like M3).
--
Jeremy
I have two examples, tested up to the most recent
build, that may require only minor mods for this.
1. Web app - JSP, JSTL, with servlet
2. EJB - stateless session (local), entity
Jacek - please let me know if they may be of interest,
and I'll email them to you.
I also have examples for client
I do think it would good to pick a date to aim for. Then we can
pick a date in advance of that to make a branch for M4. How long do you
think it will take to get the demo apps ready?
In any case, I'll volunteer to work on the README and release
notes.
Aaron
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005
David Blevins wrote:
Not mandatory, but nice:
- A 15 min servlet example with related descriptors
- A 15 min ejb example with related descriptors
I volunteer to do it once I finish the work on PetStore. It should give
me enough knowledge about configuration stuff so these 15-minutes
exa
So, JavaOne is over, the 4th of July holiday is almost over. Let's start the
release talk.
Minimally, to get M4 out the door, we need to:
- Create something for general testing
- Cleaned up README (is it out of date?)
- Scrub JIRA and prepare our copious changelog
- Create human readabl
61 matches
Mail list logo
