[JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed

2003-03-22 Thread chris
= ==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS= = JAVA VERSION DETAILS java version 1.4.1_02 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard

Re: [JBoss-dev] Two tests are timing out in 3.2 testsuite

2003-03-22 Thread Adrian Brock
Hi, Commit option C was broken by the removal of the passivation thread. It self deadlockeds. Not guilty, but I'm fixing it as penance for my dyslexic canPassivate() method :-) Regards, Adrian From: Scott M Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:

Re: [JBoss-dev] Why does jmx have a duplicate logging package?

2003-03-22 Thread Adrian Brock
We've started talking about doing this about a six months ago. But it has never been a priority. The original reason for the separate implementation was that Juha wanted jbossmx to run standalone without other jboss jars, and at the time common's logging couldn't be turned off and so required

[JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed

2003-03-22 Thread chris
= ==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS= = JAVA VERSION DETAILS java version 1.4.1_02 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard

Re: [JBoss-dev] Branch_3_0 has been updated to xdoclet 1.2

2003-03-22 Thread Lennart Petersson
Thanks Stephen!!! /L - Original Message - From: Stephen Coy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 4:15 AM Subject: [JBoss-dev] Branch_3_0 has been updated to xdoclet 1.2 As a consequence, we needed ant 1.5, so that has been incorporated as well.

[JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed

2003-03-22 Thread chris
= ==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS= = JAVA VERSION DETAILS java version 1.4.1_02 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard

[JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while

2003-03-22 Thread Scott M Stark
The removal of the logging from jmx and switching of dependency ordering between common and jmx has broken the build until this is resolved. One complication in doing this is the fact that the xdoclet generated mbeans are referencing a org.jboss.util.jmx.ObjectNameFactory: public static final

Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while

2003-03-22 Thread David Jencks
tools/etc/xdoclet/templates/mbean-custom.xdt david On 2003.03.22 15:44 Scott M Stark wrote: The removal of the logging from jmx and switching of dependency ordering between common and jmx has broken the build until this is resolved. One complication in doing this is the fact that the xdoclet

Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while

2003-03-22 Thread Scott M Stark
tools/etc/xdoclet/templates/mbean-custom.j has been updated in 3.2 to use the org.jboss.mx.util.ObjectNameFactory and the build is working again. Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC - Original Message - From: David

Re: [JBoss-dev] Jboss/David Vs. Sun/Goliath?

2003-03-22 Thread Tom Coleman
Don't be too sure that there isn't a number of months of effort to pass the conformance suite. There are lots of edge cases and areas of interpretation when implementing from a spec. Unless they give the compliance testing to Bill Burke. He could probably get it done in a weekend.

[JBoss-dev] Automated JBoss(JBoss_3_2_0_RC4 WonderLand) Testsuite Results: 22-March-2003

2003-03-22 Thread scott . stark
JBoss daily test results SUMMARY Number of tests run: 1154 Successful tests: 1147 Errors:7 Failures: 0 [time of test: 2003-03-22.21-35 GMT] [java.version:

[JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed

2003-03-22 Thread chris
= ==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS= = JAVA VERSION DETAILS java version 1.4.1_02 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard

Re: [JBoss-dev] Jboss/David Vs. Sun/Goliath?

2003-03-22 Thread danch
Tom Coleman wrote: Don't be too sure that there isn't a number of months of effort to pass the conformance suite. There are lots of edge cases and areas of interpretation when implementing from a spec. Unless they give the compliance testing to Bill Burke. He could probably get it done in a

Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while

2003-03-22 Thread Adrian Brock
Bloody CVS merge putting jboss.jmx back in! Why didn't common compile over Sun's RI, it did for me? Regards, Adrian From: Scott M Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:35:44 -0800

Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while

2003-03-22 Thread Scott M Stark
I don't know so I just made the dependency to jmx all on the jmx module rather than needing the RI classes. Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC - Original Message - From: Adrian Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL

Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while

2003-03-22 Thread Adrian Brock
Doh! I see, I didn't commit common/build.xml +1 Guiness for me, sorry. Regards, Adrian From: Adrian Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] 3.2 build broken for a while Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:32:58 + Bloody CVS merge putting

[JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed

2003-03-22 Thread chris
= ==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS= = JAVA VERSION DETAILS java version 1.4.1_02 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard

[JBoss-dev] [AUTOMATED] (HEAD) JBoss compilation failed

2003-03-22 Thread chris
= ==THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - SEE http://jboss.kimptoc.net FOR DETAILS= = JAVA VERSION DETAILS java version 1.4.1_02 Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard