ote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Guess 17 is a prerequisite of the spec so no real choice afaik until we
> dont comply to the api.
> For j11/cdi3 our previous shades do the job.
>
> Tck filters+jira links are in the testng xml config if it helps.
>
> Romain
>
> Le j
> On Jan 30, 2023, at 5:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> * Some challenged tests, some unspecified behaviour in some tests. E.g. they
> assume a specified order class annotations before method annotations for
> Interceptors. But the spec *explicitly* says that for Interceptors with the
> same
Looks like we’ve set the Java version to 17. I can confirm it does build fine
with 11.
Are we open to using 11 for 4.0.0 and waiting till the next release to go to 17?
-David
> On Jan 30, 2023, at 5:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> hi folks!
>
> We are up and running with passing most
> On Nov 8, 2022, at 7:50 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> It is intended to not cache the missed hits since they shouldn't occur at
> runtime and would open the door to OOME issues.
> I looked at your sample, there is indeed a bug in ActionServlet#process
> which should do that
g
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
>> |
>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-devel
> On Jun 2, 2022, at 12:03 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> I had an idea about how we could implement CDI-4.0 without all the overhead
> it brings.
Can you elaborate on the overhead you're concerned about? (not a challenge --
I'm not very familiar with the details yet)
-David
smime.p7s
point me to instructions on how to update the website.
Here's the full documentation on the process:
- https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/tckprocess/
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Mar 17, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> Hi lords and ladies!
>
> I'd like to call a 2nd VOTE for releasing Apache OpenWebBeans 2.0.22
>
> We did fix the following tickets:
&g
> On Mar 17, 2021, at 1:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Le mer. 17 mars 2021 à 08:50, Romain Manni-Bucau a
> écrit :
>
>> @David OWB is still on 3.0.0-M3:
>> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/blob/master/webbeans-tck-jakarta/pom.xml#L167
>>
>
> Ok just upgraded to 3.0.1 and we are
> On Mar 16, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> oki, it is now configurable. So the worst thing you could do is to overwrite
> the default in an openwebbeans.properties file inside TomEE.
Everything looks good for a release from the TomEE side. Fire at will.
> Btw, TomEE builds
> On Mar 16, 2021, at 4:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> The results after the OWB upgrade and prior to this weekend's changes were
> less than 10k passing.
For clarity, the reason things worked before the OWB upgrade is we had
AbstractProxyFactory patched. I deleted that after M
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 2:16 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Added a configuration for the packages - since we can hit that with some
>> "specific" jars and some
On the Jakarta namespace support, I should just need another day or so to
verify.
-David
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Once we solved/reverted/enhanced the jakarta pending point +1
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:27 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Added a configuration for the packages - since we can hit that with some
> "specific" jars and some signed ones:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1377
> Didn't get a change to run TCK setup but proxied the jakarta
> On Mar 12, 2021, at 11:57 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Likely more a question for David: why is jakarta considered as a forbidden
> package (
> https://github.com/apache/openwebbeans/commit/6ede81da26a4a65dc0c88fda7e438f29114fea37)
> ?
>
> To explain why I ask: jakarta is a
the
defineInterceptorStack method and we skip it at the time where we would resolve
those.
Is there a reason we don't have the inner class in ThirdpartyBeanImpl extend
AbstractProducer?
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
manager, therefore the custom scope is *never* used.
Don’t have time to improve the testcase, but perfect afternoon of hacking for
someone else to enjoy :)
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 10:49 PM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gma
gutted ExternalTestScopeContext but sadly all tests in webbeans-impl
still pass.
Went back several versions 1.2.2, 1.1.8, etc. Sadly same behavior on all of
them.
What’s the deal?
(fyi, presentation is Tuesday)
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Jun 16, 2015, at 7:10 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
Hi!
I’d like to call a VOTE on Apache OpenWebBeans-1.6.1.
The staging repository is here
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories
+1
--
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com
On May 23, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.5 .
This is a maintenance release of the owb_1.2.x branch and targets the CDI-1.0
+1 and thank you!!
On May 1, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.2.4 .
This is a maintenance release of the owb_1.2.x branch and targets the CDI-1.0
specification.
The ReleaseNotes are available online:
+1
-David
On Nov 8, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO jeano...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys,
As discuss in another thread, I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache
OpenWebBeans-1.2.1 .
This is a maintenance release of the OpenWebBeans-1.2.x branch.
The ReleaseNotes are available
proposed a patch but it needs
some review (Mark wanted to have a deeper look if I didnt misunderstand).
This is clearly blocking ATM :(.
Le 6 nov. 2013 04:39, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com a écrit :
Jean-Louis fixed the issue and mentioned he would release today. But I
also know the release
Anyone have any objections if I roll a 1.2.1 release?
-David
+1
David
On May 13, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
Hi!
This is now a split VOTE for owb-build-tools-1.3
The stating repo is up here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenwebbeans-016/
The sources can be found at
That would be a good change. I mentioned on IRC yesterday that the new code is
technically still not thread-safe as the lists themselves are not thread-safe
(your point).
Mark's first remark was that the lists are not updated after initialization.
If that's true we could even get by with
in a declaringType. I looked through all
the code usages, ran all the tests, ran the TCK in OWB and in TomEE and this
never happened.
If anyone sees any issues with it, let me know.
-David
On May 11, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, David
on it, if you want it thread safe at runtime
convert it to sthg thread safe...copyonwriteXXX structures will be enough.
We dont need what you did IMO
Le 12 mai 2013 00:04, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com a écrit :
On May 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com
wrote
more
Le 12 mai 2013 20:15, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com a écrit :
Looked into that this morning.
It occurred to me that would definitely make it thread-safe, but alone
doesn't give us the right logic for AnnotatedType.getMethods(), etc. which
are supposed to return a complete list
There was some doubt on IRC as to if AnnotatedType should be thread safe as
well as some comments that eliminating the use of AnnotatedType at runtime
would be a possible solution.
We certainly can reduce or eliminate our use of AnnotatedType, but noticed the
BeanManager API gives us no choice
David Blevins created OWB-859:
-
Summary: Remove checkstyle double-checked locking rule
Key: OWB-859
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-859
Project: OpenWebBeans
Issue Type: Task
On May 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote:
That being said, I'll see if I can reduce the memory requirement of the fix.
Done. Managed to reduce the memory requirement of the original code for the
lazy case as well. Basically two object references lighter (128
Since the upgrade to 1.2.0 in we have a test failure. There's a servlet with
constructor injection like so:
@Inject
public SimpleServlet(Car car) {
this.car = car;
}
And Car looks like so:
public class Car {
private final String make = Lexus, model = IS 350;
David Blevins created OWB-858:
-
Summary: AnnotatedTypeImpl not thread safe
Key: OWB-858
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-858
Project: OpenWebBeans
Issue Type: Bug
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-858?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13655131#comment-13655131
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-858:
---
Some sample output from the testcase that reflects
Excellent. Fixed an issue in OWB that was affecting the TomEE build for a few
days (OWB-858 - AnnotatedTypeImpl not thread safe). Was causing
java.util.ConcurrentModificationExceptions.
Hopefully we can get that in there. Out of time tonight, but would like to
find the issue with
) or the injection target (SimpleServlet
constructor) are passivation capable.
-David
Am 10.05.13 22:55 schrieb David Blevins unter david.blev...@gmail.com:
Since the upgrade to 1.2.0 in we have a test failure. There's a servlet
with constructor injection like so:
@Inject
public
.
Though I'm not sure if we have all the xbean release finished until tomorrow
evening. (still 1 +1 missing imo)
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com
To: openwebbeans-dev dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13
Probably should have sent this note yesterday. We need a 1.1.8 release for the
pending TomEE 1.5.2.
Mark had indicated he needed to get OWB-790 fixed which he did. I might try
rolling some release candidates unless someone beats me to it. If there's some
reason to hold up, that's cool too.
David Blevins created OWB-743:
-
Summary: Overloaded EJB Observer methods fail to deploy
Key: OWB-743
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-743
Project: OpenWebBeans
Issue Type: Bug
+1
Thanks, so much, Mark for all the work on this release! Pretty outstanding!
-David
On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi!
I'd again like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.6 . I
fixed the issues which stopped our first attempt
This
is a bugfix
have Jiras created for?
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org; Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release OWB-1.1.6 end of this week
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-701?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Blevins updated OWB-701:
--
Component/s: Core
Summary: Support ASM for Bean Proxies (was: Remove Javassist)
Support ASM
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-701?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Blevins resolved OWB-701.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Support ASM for Bean Proxies
Key
Got the ASM support finished. OWB-701 officially closed.
We still use Javassist by default, but we have the ability to use ASM.
Mark, do you need help with the release? (I know you have a *very* busy week
coming up :)
-David
On Sep 12, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
2nd try as
David Blevins created OWB-701:
-
Summary: Remove Javassist
Key: OWB-701
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-701
Project: OpenWebBeans
Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter
. If someone has some very deep OWB
integration code that digs right down into the proxy layer, they're welcome to
speak up. We can easily hold the show and discuss.
-David
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:27 AM, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey All,
Heads up that I'd like
+1
David
On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to call a second VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.4 .
I've now fixed the picking up of the atinject-tck and docs.
This
is a bugfix release of OpenWebBeans-1.1.x, thus no branch has been
created.
Welcome to this side of the fence, Romain! :)
-David
On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
All,
The OpenWebBeans PMC is pleased to announce that Romain Manni-Bucau has
accepted our invitation to join the OpenWebBeans project as a
committer.
Congratulations and welcome
Renamed ImplementationLoaderService to simply LoaderService. Let me know if I
stepped on anyone's toes :) Will be happy to revert.
Seeing implements Implementation... in the code had me lost in an existential
chicken and egg and the meaning of meaning tailspin. Too deep for me too
think
We'll probably be doing releases of Geronimo in the next couple weeks.
Wondering what we thought about the timing for our 1.1.1 code.
Anything in particular we want to get in it or are we pretty much good to go?
-David
Integration
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 1.1.1
Makes the specialization code for EJBs in OpenEJB a little easier
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-573?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13065708#comment-13065708
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-573:
---
If you can post the code that does the performance
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-573?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13064717#comment-13064717
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-573:
---
Sure, happy to look into it. Not sure how
Type: Bug
Components: Enterprise Web Beans
Reporter: David Blevins
Assignee: David Blevins
Fix For: 1.1.1
Use the Ejb Plugin to convert bean methods into the respective business methods
of the interface. The method invocations themselves will always
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-573?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Blevins resolved OWB-573.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Invalid checking of Interceptor serialization capabilities for
non-Passivation
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-587?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Blevins resolved OWB-587.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Use business interface for producer and disposer methods of Session beans
Digging into a test that essentially has two observer methods and is asserting
that only one of them are called.
public void observeElephantSessionBean(@Observes
ProcessSessionBeanElephant event)
{
ProcessBeanObserver.elephantProcessSessionBean = event;
}
public void
Grinding through some of the broken packages of the CDI TCK and many of them
are passing... some of them for the wrong reason. Any deployment issue counts
as a win with those tests, so it's incredibly difficult to verify if the test
is passing for the right reason.
One thing that is obvious
, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com
Subject: Exception handling idea
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 6:43 AM
Grinding through some of the broken
packages of the CDI TCK and many of them are passing... some
bottlenecks. That's the part I try and stay away from.
-David
From: David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 7:54:28 AM
Subject: Re: Classpath Scanner proposal
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Mark
+1
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache OpenWebBeans-1.1.0 .
Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenwebbeans-040/
SVN source tag (1085208):
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
I'd like to cook up something for a JSR, but need some more time.
David wrote xbean-finder and we could easily move this to commons or extract
it into a single jar in geronimo.
It's already a single jar with just the
In OpenEJB we have OWB integrated 100% of the time. Primarily so that
scenarios like this don't occur. I.e. my app worked fine and then I turned on
CDI and all these unrelated things break.
Shawn, I'm hammering on that code now on the OpenEJB end. I've checked in a
temporary work around
Does our hudson setup deploy snapshots? If not I could set that up in
buildbot. It's possible in buildbot to have it only deploy after a successful
'mvn clean install'
-David
On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
hi folks!
Today I did run a few jmeter tests and it seems that we have some serious
bottle neck in our code currently. The app just doesn't really scale well
anymore and performance is down to 20% compared to 1.0.0 ...
What aspects were
/~dblevins/ejbd-client-performance.png
You cook up your own test as you normally would, then it will execute it in
parallel however you like and take samples of each client thread and process
and spit out updated stats.
-David
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins david.blev
Blevins wrote:
Hope attachments work
PastedGraphic-1.png
On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
oh that looks really neat.
Will check it out.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 2/24/11, David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Blevins david.blev...@gmail.com
On Jan 20, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Btw,...
... a biiig thanks for your work on this topic! Really great stuff!
No problem. It's been fun.
And also to djencks for the integration stuff and TCK work!
Thanks to Gurkan as well. It pretty much started with him, went to me
Attempting to run the in-Tomcat version of the tck. Not having any luck.
Doesn't seem like the expected files are being copied into Tomcat. Namely, it
seems to be missing the CDI API jar.
Before I spend much time digging into this, can someone verify that these are
the correct steps (taken
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com wrote:
On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Some of these ideas are implemented in the patch attached to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-511
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, David
On Jan 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Some statements in WebBeansContext and DefaultsingleonService as
util.Track.
I will comment out them
Whoops! Thanks, Gurkan! I have a script to comment/uncomment them, but forgot
to run it. Was a little tired :)
-David
surprised at what
it does and doesn't do. I wonder if what I want it to do is what David
Blevins was thinking of as next steps.
You pretty much got it. The changes are a good next step. We still have a
ways to go as in OpenWebBeans proper (using the DefaultSingletonService) we
still get
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM, David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com wrote:
Basically just attempting to strongly type that second hashmap. I'm a big
fan of incremental refactoring and this seemed like a nice baby-step that
didn't require us to break the existing WebBeansFinder API, yet
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Gerhard gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
hi @ all,
i talked to bill burke (the developer of scannotation). he told me that he
stopped maintaining scannotation.
that means he is looking for somebody who continues with the project.
imo:
since we won't get in
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-480?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12925870#action_12925870
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-480:
---
Thanks, Gurkan.
FYI, I just uploaded new 1.1.0
me in for helping with that :) Would be a fantastic change.
Oh yea, all work on this will be done after -alpha-2 of course ;)
Anxiously waiting :)
-David
- Original Message
From: David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 2:51
This is a debatable chance, but the goal is to somehow make it possible for
integrators to be less strict with this particular spec rule.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=982715
Basically, we opted not to strictly enforce this as the
invocationContext.proceed() method
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:18 AM, David Blevins wrote:
This is a debatable chance, but the goal is to somehow make it possible for
integrators to be less strict with this particular spec rule.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=982715
Basically, we opted not to strictly
: David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 1:40:22 AM
Subject: EJBUtility.fireEvents
Curious on this part of that method:
manager.addBean(WebBeansUtil.createNewBean(ejbBean));
manager.addBean(ejbBean
On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
But maybe I miss something: what do you mean with different meta-data in this
context?
For example, something like this:
ejb-jar
enterprise-beans
session
ejb-nameBeanOne/ejb-name
On Aug 4, 2010, at 2:25 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
But maybe I miss something: what do you mean with different meta-data in
this
context?
For example, something like this:
ejb-jar
enterprise-beans
session
If you have any thoughts, post 'em! :)
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: dblev...@visi.com
From: David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com
Date: July 19, 2010 9:44:53 PM PDT
To: d...@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: JCDI and Bean Validation TCKs
Reply-To: d...@geronimo.apache.org
Currently
On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
I'm doing some work with a non-openejb EJB container and looking at
the base and openejb-specific logic
OpenEJBBean.java:
public ListMethod getRemoveMethods()
{
// Should we delegate to super and merge both?
return
On Jul 11, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Is anybody know how to get Java EE Web Profile TCK from Oracle/Sun? Or show
me
a pointer?
Here's the first step: http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
If we can get both you and Mark to submit one, great.
After that is recorded, I
Blevins david.blev...@visi.com wrote:
From: David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com
Subject: Re: graduation
To: openwebbeans-...@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 12:03 AM
On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I wonder what the group would think about
On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, David Blevins wrote:
I wonder what the group would think about potentially graduating into
OpenEJB. Perhaps as a subproject for this spec cycle, but with the longer
term goal of becoming part of the same codebase.
Vision-wise, I'd like to offer
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-306?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12838579#action_12838579
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-306:
---
Here is the basic code we use in OpenEJB
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-307?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12838586#action_12838586
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-307:
---
Here's the code we have in OpenEJB for setParameters
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-309?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12838590#action_12838590
]
David Blevins commented on OWB-309:
---
And here's how we have that implemented in OpenEJB
on board) would be to
publish the 1.0.9-SNAPSHOT pom with packaging 'pom' containing only
the information that is still not final and people should use EA1
instead. Basically the same like we did with javax.* artifacts for a
long time.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
--- On Wed, 1/20/10, David Blevins
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
I have looked,
https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_1.0_spec/1.0-SNAPSHOT/
.
It is correct now.
But
There are two versions of interceptor specification in the repo,
?
They should have been published. Published them again for good measure.
Let me know if these don't look any better.
-David
Thanks;
--Gurkan
2010/1/14 David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com
Heads up on some spec jar changes...
I've started to run the various geronimo-foo_spec jars through
93 matches
Mail list logo
