On Sunday 05 February 2006 13:58, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> James in particular lead the effort to remove theses dependencies,
> because it bugged him that these services were "trapped" in Geronimo.
Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I tried to use the TM from Geronimo some
time ago, and it was
Niclas,
Although at one time this was true of the transaction manager in
Geronimo, we have done some very minor work to make this optional. I
designed the Geronimo kernel and consider it a design flaw that the
kernel becomes a dependency of the services it manages. This is
something we
On Friday 03 February 2006 03:50, David Blevins wrote:
> OpenEJB has been proposed as a subproject of Geronimo. See the
> proposal here:
I think this is a good idea.
However, I would like to hear why OpenEJB was not part of Geronimo's
incubation?? After all, it was one of the cornerstones to ge
On Friday 03 February 2006 23:53, James Strachan wrote:
> The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
> download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
> the transaction manager...
IMHO, this is a vast exaggeration that is not entirely fair to make, and
David Crossley wrote:
ifficulty for Anakia.
Today i will investigate.
Hooray, i fixed it. We were using a 1.5-dev version of
Velocity. Now back to the 1.4 release version.
Whoa. The problem was velocity 1.5?
-
To unsubs
Hi Aaron!
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 03:02:23PM -0500, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> If you want to involve the community outside the various PMCs, then
Heh. This ain't just open source, its open "just about everything". Of
course I want the wider (developer) community involved...I'd hope
everyone wants tha
Hi, Dims,
I have looked into
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/webservices/commons
and find it puzzling for several reasons. First of all, I do find the
expected directories "branches", and "tags". However, there's no
directory "trunk"? Besides, I do find the expected "site" directory, but
o
On 2/4/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you, I think this lightens the load and increases oversite by the
> incubator PMC itself.
Yup. And, by the Directors too. =)
> It would be nice to stagger these, such that they are due 2 weeks before
> the board meeting to [EMAI
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't think anyone has told the Incubator this (perhaps we have and
I just missed it), but, at the last Board meeting, the Board discussed
that the Incubator should divide its projects for reporting purposes
and submit a sub-collection of podling reports each month rath
I don't think anyone has told the Incubator this (perhaps we have and
I just missed it), but, at the last Board meeting, the Board discussed
that the Incubator should divide its projects for reporting purposes
and submit a sub-collection of podling reports each month rather than
all podlings every
In this case, if the Xerces folks don't want to take responsibility for
creating the community / committment to the code, then they absolutely
can ask for the code to undergo the full incubuation process. But if they
choose instead to assume responsibility for the long term committment to
this ac
On 2/3/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that depending where the code comes into Apache
> different groups of people get to work on it from the start:
>
> -- incubator headed to top level project. IIUC basically any apache
> committer including all the servicemix develo
Hi all,
I'm afraid I don't have time for a drawn-out discussion about any of this,
especially
not a heated one, but a few people asked me to write this down anyway. This
message is
directed primarily at the Geronimo PMC.
I've just reviewed the traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi David,
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:04:03PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> So, with the vote having passed, there are some things to do. I think
> we need some guidance in terms of things to do and what steps can be run
> in parallel. Sorry if some of this is obvious.
As long as you make sure
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:43:45AM -0800, Andy Clark wrote:
> /me removes Zimbra hat.
>
> For the past several years, I've wanted to donate my HTML
> parser code built on Xerces-J to the Xerces project. It is
> written using the Xerces Native Interface and provides HTML
> parsing with XML APIs.
>
David N. Welton wrote:
Hi,
*) Cleaning up the code - they're in the process of cleaning up the
code, getting rid of LGPL dependencies. This needs to happen prior to
the code touching our subversion repositories, correct?
Preferrably, though not a must. eg Roller has them..
Mvgr,
Martin
Bill,
I just want to clarify that we (myself and Chris Lim) were not against
your contribution in Agila at all, we just wanted to make sure that
the code remained open to others' code contributions as well. We
wanted to keep the project open and collaborate with you without
ditching the existing c
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:47, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
Is Ser
Hi,
So, with the vote having passed, there are some things to do. I think
we need some guidance in terms of things to do and what steps can be run
in parallel. Sorry if some of this is obvious.
*) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here,
/incubator/site-author/ip-clea
On 4 Feb 2006, at 01:38, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
I'm going to remove my original -1 from this thread and vote +1 for
it.
My apologies for helping to create this major ruckus. This type of
heated discussion does not help build communities and cross community
interactions that would benefit a
On 3 Feb 2006, at 23:14, David Jencks wrote:
I'm trying to sort out the issues here. As I understand Sybase
wants to donate the code and keep working on it in a community
larger than the Sybase developers working on it :-)
It seems to me that depending where the code comes into Apache
dif
I went to legal-discuss with this and received a satisfactory answer.
Here's the proposed patch to the IP clearance page. If I don't get any
negative feedback I'll apply the patch within 48 hours.
Index:
C:/Dev/apache.org/rw/incubator-public-trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/index.xml
==
IMO, going through the Incubator is not mandatory. The Xerces PMC could
decide to integrate CyberNeko (right?) into Xerces-J as an additional
component/feature. If it depends on Xerces-J and is a useful addition to
Xerces but has too little mass to lead a life on its own, I'd say it
could make a fi
23 matches
Mail list logo
