Hi all,
I successfully passed the final evaluation of the Google Summer of Code
2011.
I like to thank Jean-Sebastian who is my mentor did a great job in achieving
this. Also I like to thank Ant, Luciano, Simon, Ramond, Mike, Florian and
other community members, your input was helped me a lot. Since
Congratulations!
I look forward to using the simple tutorial to play around :-). Can you give us
a pointer?
Thanks,
Raymond
Raymond Feng
rf...@apache.org
Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of Tus
Hi devs,
I am happy to inform you that I have successfully passed GSoC final evaluations.
I think this is a right time for me to thank all who helped me in my
journey as a newbie in Tuscany.
First of all I (again) like to thank Jean-Sebastien, my mentor, who
helped me through out the project wit
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Laws closed TUSCANY-3925.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Change committed at revision: 1162160. Thanks for the patch Jennifer.
> AccessCo
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:06 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Simon Laws
> wrote:
>
>> However I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about the
>> performance of remote interface matching. You may have noticed I've
>> turned if off temporarily.
>
> Yes I have noticed that no
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> However I'm becoming increasingly skeptical about the
> performance of remote interface matching. You may have noticed I've
> turned if off temporarily.
Yes I have noticed that now as i was using it to validate the changes
i was doing for TUS
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Laws reassigned TUSCANY-3925:
---
Assignee: Simon Laws
> AccessControl Exception originating from
> DefaultFactoryExtensionP
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jennifer A Thompson updated TUSCANY-3925:
-
Patch Info: [Patch Available]
> AccessControl Exception originating from
> Def
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jennifer A Thompson updated TUSCANY-3925:
-
Description:
When running with Java 2 security enabled the following AccessCont
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jennifer A Thompson updated TUSCANY-3925:
-
Attachment: TUSCANY-3925.patch
> AccessControl Exception originating from
> De
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Greg Dritschler
wrote:
> I am having some trouble with getting the input to an asynchronous service
> operation processed correctly using a JAXB databinding. I have tracked it
> down to the following:
> * JAXWSJavaInterfaceProcessor introspects the actual asynchr
asynchronous service interface and introspection
Key: TUSCANY-3934
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3934
Project: Tuscany
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: ant elder
>F
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
>> snip...
>>> While we're on this subject, I happened to be wondering today whether
>>> @AsyncInvocation obligates the service implementation to use the async
>>> service interface? Obviously
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:25 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Simon Laws
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Laws
wrote:
> Issu
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:25 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Laws
>>> wrote:
>>>
Issues 3: Given that callback endpoints are put into the registry
>>>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> snip...
>> While we're on this subject, I happened to be wondering today whether
>> @AsyncInvocation obligates the service implementation to use the async
>> service interface? Obviously it makes the most sense to use them together,
>> but is t
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Laws
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Issues 3: Given that callback endpoints are put into the registry
>>> there is a danger that they will be mistakenly matched for
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:31 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
>
>> Issues 3: Given that callback endpoints are put into the registry
>> there is a danger that they will be mistakenly matched for forward
>> endpoint when just the component name is provided
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
> Issues 3: Given that callback endpoints are put into the registry
> there is a danger that they will be mistakenly matched for forward
> endpoint when just the component name is provided as input to the
> match.
For issue 3 about callback endp
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Simon Laws wrote:
>>>
>>
>> A lot of the these other issues follow on from this issue so I'd like
>
> I think we need to solve the other issues regardless of issues1 as
> it's possible to use interoperable bindings in both the forward and
> callback wires.
>
>> to
snip...
> While we're on this subject, I happened to be wondering today whether
> @AsyncInvocation obligates the service implementation to use the async
> service interface? Obviously it makes the most sense to use them together,
> but is that required? As a service implementer, could I use
> @As
21 matches
Mail list logo
