://scm.ops4j.org/repos/ops4j/projects/pax/runner-repository/org/ops4j/pax/runner/profiles/modulefusion
>
> But my maven build cannot retrieve the profile. The "official" repository
> (those that have been generated by pax) are missing the new profile
> completely.
>
> S
Thanks Alin,
unfortunately it does not seem to work.
I can see the update profile here:
https://scm.ops4j.org/repos/ops4j/projects/pax/runner-repository/org/ops4j/pax/runner/profiles/modulefusion
But my maven build cannot retrieve the profile. The "official" repository
(those that
Profile updated to 1.2.1. Give it a try and let me know if is okay.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Schimmelpfeng, Joern
wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
>
>
> it looks like the modulefusion profile is broken. The older version listed
> there does not exist anymore. Please can
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Schimmelpfeng, Joern
wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
>
>
> it looks like the modulefusion profile is broken. The older version listed
> there does not exist anymore. Please can someone update the profile?
No, someone is not available at the moment,
Hello everybody,
it looks like the modulefusion profile is broken. The older version listed
there does not exist anymore. Please can someone update the profile?
Thanks
Joern
___
general mailing list
general@lists.ops4j.org
http://lists.ops4j.org
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> btw, I think Jeff mentioned P2 should be able to consume OBR metadata
> and that P2 should be able to run on other OSGi frameworks (he said if it
> didn't raise a bug to get it fixed!) so even if we went with P2 we should be
> able to take
2009/2/3 Alin Dreghiciu
> :) Coincidence.
> Today, I was reading older news and those that got my attention were
> those about Spring dm Server and latest modulefusion 1.1.0 that uses
> pax runner.
> And yep, that was my idea. we should have an open server (open as in
> our
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> Related to where modulefusion lives, is not a problem, but what is the
> motivation behind having it at google code? We do have a good
> infrastructure here, we are in control, and so on. So, ops4j seems as
> a good plac
At least the group system at googlecode is less intuitive to use than just
Mailinglist over here..
-- Forwarded message --
From: Toni Menzel
Date: Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: ModuleFusion
To: modulefusion
I second Alins conclusion to 100%. Even the slight
eading older news and those that got my attention were
> those about Spring dm Server and latest modulefusion 1.1.0 that uses
> pax runner.
> And yep, that was my idea. we should have an open server (open as in
> our open participation). So, I'm 100% into this.
>
> Related to
:) Coincidence.
Today, I was reading older news and those that got my attention were
those about Spring dm Server and latest modulefusion 1.1.0 that uses
pax runner.
And yep, that was my idea. we should have an open server (open as in
our open participation). So, I'm 100% into this.
Relat
Gang,
I have been talking Face2Face with Roman Roelofsen at ProSyst, also
the driving force behind the ModuleFusion application server platform.
What prompted me to do so (other than 'being nearby') is that
ModuleFusion touches on the 'future plans' of Pax in general. Once
u
12 matches
Mail list logo
