Looks like the issue was caused due to changes done in [1]. Fixed that
now. Would wait for bot report
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1643120
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like due to recent changes
to continue to use V1 (old LuceneIndex) for newer
setups as default for next release 1.0.9
For now I have kept V1 as the default and opened OAK-2290 to track later switch
Chetan Mehrotra
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2268?focusedCommentId=14225916l#comment-14225916
After further discussion with Thomas it appears that QueryEngine need
to provide a different AST for fulltext expressions such that
LuceneIndex can access the non tokenized expression. Opened OAK-2301
to track that
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com
, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 7.108 sec
Results :
Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Alex Parvulescu
alex.parvule...@gmail.com wrote:
Tests in error:
listBundles(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.osgi.OSGiIT): gave up waiting
aggregation related changes
Would that work for you?
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
Good morning team,
friendly reminder that today 2.30pm GMT I will be cutting the next
unstable release.
Please double check for unresolved issues, wrap
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
Yes of course. Just for my scheduling when roughly do you think we'll be
in good shape for the cut?
Would be bit conservative here. Probably by next Monday it should be done!
Chetan Mehrotra
+1 . Logo looks neat!
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
Oliver Walthard and Alexis Tessier donated a new logo for Oak [1]. I think
this is great news as the current one was chosen ad-hoc due to lack of any
logo.
I think we should
Glad to got you back :)
This build fail should get fixed with http://svn.apache.org/r1640729
Chetan Mehrotra
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:07 PM, build...@apache.org wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot. Full details are available
Thanks Davide for the feedback.
Would be helpful to get some more feedback on what should be done
there. So waiting for more feedback!
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
On 19/11/2014 13:23, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
...
So should we
How to get buildbot working again. I am not sure on what steps are
required (or how buildbot is managed) so any pointers on that would be
helpful
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
On 17/11/2014 11:24, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
For past some
.
That can possibly be handled at LuceneIndex level
Looking at JR2 code I think no such parsing was performed at that time
[2] and text passed as part of query is passed *as is* to Lucene
QueryParser
So should we disable the Fulltext parsing happening in QueryEngine?
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Alex Parvulescu
alex.parvule...@gmail.com wrote:
I see the buildbot at work [0] [1], maybe we just need to ask infra about
the status emails?
Thats better. Have raised infra issue INFRA-8659 for that
Chetan Mehrotra
case it would not fullfill as for app:Asset only the type
property would be indexed.
Current the Filter.getSuperTypes returns a set due to which the
ordering information is lost
Chetan Mehrotra
For past some days (weeks?) I am not receiving any mail from Apache
Buildbot. Is anyone else getting the mail or there is some issue with
buildbot?
Chetan Mehrotra
Hi,
I do not think we current have support for sorting with lower case
within any of the QueryIndex. Also we do not have indexes defined for
normal sorting of authorizable types.
Should we create an index as part of default Oak setup for performant
UserQueryManager?
Chetan Mehrotra
the ignore-case with a dedicated, sorted query for a
specific property.
Makes sense! However do you know of cases where user do perform even
normal sorting via UserManagerQuery API? If there is a major usecase
for that then probably we need to back them up by indexes
Chetan Mehrotra
condition requires access to
parent
Instead I suggest to export a generic mechanism for obtaining (immutable)
Tree instances given a node state.
Any details on how that should be done. I just need to convert a
NodeState to a Tree also support access to parent tree.
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Nov 14
behaviour. Therefore a „container“ for
constants should not be an interface.
Ack. I knew that I would get negative marks from you for defending
that when I sent that mail :)
Chetan Mehrotra
I have marked OAK-2269 as Wont Fix. Would implement a minimal tree in
oak-lucene to meet indexing requirements. Thanks for all the feedback!
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Felix Meschberger fmesc...@adobe.com wrote:
Hi
Am 14.11.2014 um 11:22 schrieb Chetan Mehrotra
For now I have inlined the ImmutableTree within oak-lucene and have
opened OAK-2270 to ensure that this workaround gets fixed before the
release. This would allow the osgi testcases to pass.
@Michael - In the meanwhile we can discuss the possible approach for
this problem
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri
Hi Team,
For OAK-2261 I need to use ImmutableTree from
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.tree package which is currently not
exported by Oak core. To proceed further I would like to export this
package as part of OAK-2269
Unless someone objects I would make the change by EOD today
Chetan
, actually)
Can change it to class but I do not see much issue in using interface
as holder for constants. Allows me to save bit on redundant typing of
'public static final'!. The constant is not that internal, just a name
of hidden field
Rest all classes are marked final so should be ok.
Chetan Mehrotra
to get
access to Analyer instances via service registry
Chetan Mehrotra
by
LuceneIndex are order by jcr:score. So intersection logic might miss
on some rows.
Further it might have higher performance cost as Lucene has to do
multiple runs. And supporting sorting would also be tricky
Chetan Mehrotra
was scoped by nodeType. Turning it around would make it
tricky
Chetan Mehrotra
probably we can started with #C for now for exposing analyzers
customisation which seems to cover majority of requirements. Later we
can tackle the Codec case
Chetan Mehrotra
packages to allow users to customize the
setup.
So would it be ok to export Lucene packages?
Chetan Mehrotra
to rebuild the bundle
Given that such bundles would be in low minority it should be manageable.
Chetan Mehrotra
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote:
3. AggregationIndex and IntersectionCursor - The way cursors results
are merged va intersection cursor there might be some data loss. The
intersection cursor logic would only work if the actual cursor return
to mix both approaches.
Thoughts?
Chetan Mehrotra
Pros : Full extensibility Makes use of OSGi
Cons :
1. Need to export Lucene classes,
2. Deal with OSGi dynamic nature etc (we can simply throw exception if
analyzer is not found)
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/IndexingConfiguration#Index_Analyzers
Sent wrong link for Elastic search doc. Refer to
http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/analysis.html
for how to enabled constructing analyzer
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Team,
Currently Oak
Hi Team,
I have updated the query documentation to provide details about
various features supported as part of Lucene Property Index at [1].
Kindly review it once to see if it captures the information correctly
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/query/lucene.html
!
Chetan Mehrotra
Thoughts?
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/IndexingConfiguration
[2] http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/query/lucene.html
+1. All checks ok.
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Amit Jain am...@ieee.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Alex Parvulescu alexparvule...@apache.org
wrote:
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.8.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Marcel Reutegger mreut...@adobe.com wrote:
I think merging explicit revisions is the only clean solution.
it is quite a bit of work, but makes sure we have the mergeinfo
tracked.
Thats what I feared. Would do it the right (hard!) way then.
Chetan Mehrotra
Hi Team,
I need to merge all changes done in oak-lucene so far to
branches/1.0/oak-lucene. Is it possible to do via direct command (kind
of [1]) or I would need to figure out all revisions done in oak-lucene
and specify them explicilty with svn merge command?
Chetan Mehrotra
[1]
http
readerPooling=false
perThreadHardLimitMB=1945
useCompoundFile=true
--
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://svn.apache.org/r1634504
this is not a
big issue as only binary references constitute state of the unmerged
branch. If such an issue is identified later then we can look into
implementing above mentioned mechanism
Opened OAK-2229 for this
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote:
Hi
of that time to create a directory as you
suggested above and reclaim old directory
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote:
Hi,
Then would use that UUID as the prefix ...
Sorry, that should be Then would use that _time_ as the prefix ... - I
but then
need to be sure if mapping the JCR path to filesystem (only for index
data) would be safe to use?
Chetan Mehrotra
purpose
Chetan Mehrotra
the mapping via JMX
Chetan Mehrotra
of
the node which is not seen as removed in trunk.
What I need is just a way to differentiate index state for a reindex
call and that can be managed easily via storing the creation time in
the index definition node which works easily with existing logic
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:51
files are used then any file would never be modified
and only new files would be created
Chetan Mehrotra
PS: Probably the question is more appropriate for Lucene DL but
checking here first to see if something in Oak is different from
default
.cfs - 955
_0.cfe - 194
segments.gen - 20
segments_1 - 81
_0.si - 266
-
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://svn.apache.org/r1633123
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com wrote:
Hi,
This blog post is interesting: they are using a physical switch (similar
May be better to exclude all under osgi-conf from license check
excludeosgi-conf/**/*.*/exclude
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:39 PM, alexparvule...@apache.org wrote:
Author: alexparvulescu
Date: Wed Oct 15 08:09:01 2014
New Revision: 1631967
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1631967
, /test/n15, /test/n79, /test/n23,
/test/n81, /test/n80, /test/n56, /test/n18, /test/n52, /test/n13,
/test/n31, /test/n1, /test/n43, /test/n16, /test/n78, /test/n8, /test/n26,
/test/n87, /test/n83, /test/n65]
Oops. Would look into it now
Chetan Mehrotra
that its a 1.0.8+ feature
3. OR Have the docs at apache site include version in url.
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/1.0.8/docs/osgi_config.html
Chetan Mehrotra
: Failed to delete
E:\slave14\oak-trunk-win7\build\oak-mk-api\target\oak-mk-api-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
- [Help 1]
[
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:09 PM, build...@apache.org wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF
with persistence set to filesystem then I think currently we do not
the remove the existing index data which might lead to index
containing stale data.
Should we provide any sort of callback for indexers when reindex is requested?
Chetan Mehrotra
attached to IndexPlan instance.
If I go extension route then I would need to decorate an existing
IndexPlan instance so quite a bit of redundant code. So would prefer
an attribute based approach.
Thoughts?
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alex Parvulescu
alex.parvule...@gmail.com
Thats simple and precise solution to a nasty problem. :)
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM, mreut...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mreutegg
Date: Wed Oct 8 15:59:30 2014
New Revision: 1630156
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1630156
Log:
OAK-2144: Intermittent Node not found
impl and add required meta info like index
path in that
2. Have some way of passing a payload in the IndexPlan itself which an
index impl can use to manage such info
Chetan Mehrotra
[1]
https://github.com/chetanmeh/jackrabbit-oak/compare/chetanmeh:trunk...OAK-2005?diff=split#diff-12
[2] http
the right Lucene index
Chetan Mehrotra
[3] http://markmail.org/message/jjrkz7x7vwzunypa
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
While working on Lucene property index support I need to modify the
logic to support multiple Lucene Index definitions
options
1. Make SolrQueryIndex implement AdvanceQueryIndex and thus
AdvanceFulltextQueryIndex
2. OR Duplicate AggregateIndex to have one impl for AdvanceQueryIndex
and other for QueryIndex
Doing #1 should not take much effort but still a change in existing impl.
Which route to take?
Chetan
on with Lucene index
related work (OAK-2005). Would it be ok if I do #1 i.e. Make
SolrQueryIndex implement AdvanceQueryIndex and thus
AdvanceFulltextQueryIndex bit later.
Thoughts?
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Chetan,
I think no. 1
Failure was because build bot picked only one change. For the build to
pass all 3 changes need to be picked up
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:10 PM, build...@apache.org wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot.
Full details
After discussing it Tomomaso offline would be going with option #3.
Opened OAK-2168 to track changes required in SolrIndex to support
AdvanceQueryIndex and later AggregateIndex
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Chetan Mehrotra
chetan.mehro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tommaso,
also
HI Michael,
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:44 PM, mdue...@apache.org wrote:
+* upgrade : Upgrade from Jackrabbit 2
upgrade mode is only supported in oak-run-jr2 jar (as that only
packages JR2 classes) and is documented there [1]
Chetan Mehrotra
[1]
https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak
Hi Thomas,
Command line tool options are documented at the readme in oak-run
folder. See [1]. Or you are looking for something else?
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-oak/tree/trunk/oak-run#oak-runnable-jar
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Thomas Mueller muel
for
storage of index nodes and then remove only those nodes
Chetan Mehrotra
forward in OAK-2005.
Note that initial plan was to
1. Have current LuceneIndex moved to AdvanceQueryIndex
2. Then branch off the impl and make a new copy which has changes done
for Property index support
Chetan Mehrotra
queries which involve property restrictions.
With this existing logic would not be modified and we can move ahead
with Lucene based property index. Later once we unify them we can
tackle this issue
Chetan Mehrotra
+1
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote:
On 22.9.14 6:13 , Amit Jain wrote:
[X] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.6
Michael
where a new checkpoint gets created (Line
229) then that checkpoint would not be released and also would not be
recorded in index metadata. Such a checkpoint would prevent GC for a
long time.
Is that understanding correct?
Chetan Mehrotra
properly.
Yes thats the case I was referring to
Let's continue the investigation on OAK-2087.
This issue is different from OAK-2087 as that is only meant for
informational purpose. Opened OAK-2088 for this issue and would
followup there
Chetan Mehrotra
)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:27 AM, build...@apache.org wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/builds
I have updated OAK-2082 with test run results. Looking at the result I
think FDS does provide a benefit in terms of lesser storage space.
Putting Lucene index on file system provides best storage efficiency
but then it would not work once we have TarMK failover implemented.
Chetan Mehrotra
CopyOnReadDirectory support in OAK-1724
Further we also get the benefit of sharing the BlobStore between
multiple instances if required!!
Thoughts?
Chetan Mehrotra
would need to add one for '{}' in log message to log the 'updates' argument.
Chetan Mehrotra
Hi,
Do we have any build bot running for 1.0 branch
Chetan Mehrotra
This was discussed earlier [1] and Jukka mentioned that there were
some restriction of deployment size. I tried pushing a snapshot
version sometime back and that got deploy fine. So I think we should
try to deploy artifacts again
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://markmail.org/thread/ofvy3z5lyu5cw2i7
to expose the faceted data
bound to a system path. Otherwise we would need to expose the Lucene
API and OakDirectory
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-08-25 19:02 GMT+02:00 Lukas Smith sm...@pooteeweet.org:
Aloha,
Aloha
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Tobias Bocanegra tri...@apache.org wrote:
IMO, this should work, even if the value is not a ValueImpl. In this
case, it should fall back to the API methods to read the binary.
+1
Chetan Mehrotra
/classifier
scopetest/scope
/dependency
Chetan Mehrotra
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
On 20/08/2014 10:11, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
oops, you are right, that would be a bad idea. I thought this is about
a production class and not a test utility.
I
are exclusive.
So at minimum if you can provide a patch which allows the admin to
choose between the two it would allow us to experiment and later see
how we can put a max cap on cache size.
Chetan Mehrotra
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Vikas Saurabh vikas.saur...@gmail.com wrote:
we can
Lucene index defintions multiple
LuceneIndex instances would be returned by LucenIndexProvider and each
impl would return a single plan
Chetan Mehrotra
if we can have a cache policy which can put up a max cap on memory
taken and also allow limit of number of entries then that would give a
more deterministic control on tuning the cache
Chetan Mehrotra
that this refactoring should be delayed (if that is to be
done) for some time till we get more stability in the two NodeStore
implementations.
Chetan Mehrotra
(ContentRepositoryImpl.java:161)
at
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.repository.RepositoryImpl.login(RepositoryImpl.java:253)
... 43 more
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, build...@apache.org wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk-win7 while
building ASF Buildbot.
Full
be fine
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Davide Giannella dav...@apache.org wrote:
Currently we use junit 4.10. By looking at the release notes of 4.11[0]
there's a nice improvement on the Assume that we use, being able to
provide a custom message.
(0)
https://github.com/junit
Hi Davide,
Recently Ian pointed to Metrics [1] project which is related to such
timing measurements. It might be helpful to use this (via a wrapper)
to measure timings in critical areas in Oak. So have a look at that
also
Chetan Mehrotra
[1] http://metrics.codahale.com/
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014
+1
All checks ok
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Regards,
Tommaso
2014-08-01 11:45 GMT+02:00 Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com:
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.4 release is available at:
https
with the suggestion of returning one plan per
index.
btw any plans to add hint support to force usage of specific index?
Chetan Mehrotra
it
would be implementation specific
Chetan Mehrotra
. The Boolean query created would maintain the order and might be
faster if the result from first clause is small.
Would it make sense to retain the order of property restrictions?
Chetan Mehrotra
This is being tracked via OAK-1708. Julian do we still require it or
these can be removed now?
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Alex Parvulescu
alex.parvule...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that even if the h2 dependency is now included with a 'test'
scope [0], we still
was 23ms, measured granularity was 10.0ms)
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:34 PM, build...@apache.org wrote:
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder oak-trunk while building
ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/oak-trunk/builds/384
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Raquel Neves
raquel.ne...@alert-online.com wrote:
Timed out while waiting for a server that matches AnyServerSelector
Are you able to connect to Mongo via Mongo shell? Also can you try
connecting with host set 127.0.0.1
Chetan Mehrotra
internal implementation details and you
would have to refer to code for that.
btw whats the higher level objective here. That might help us to clarify better
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Abhijit Mazumder
abhijit.mazum...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This is my first mail to Oak mailing
: Failed with seed -255091622
at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:50)
at junit.framework.Assert.assertTrue(Assert.java:20)
at
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.plugins.segment.CompactionMapTest.testCompactionMap(CompactionMapTest.java:89)
And on running the testcase it indeed fails with that seed
Chetan
();
+}
+}
+}
+}
+
+}
Interesting test approach Marcel!!
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
OAK-1645: Route find queries to Mongo secondary in MongoDocumentStore
This part still needs to be tested completely so I have set the fix
version now to 1.0.2
Chetan Mehrotra
Closeable
2. Have the actual implementations (i.e. SegmentNodeStore and
DocumentNodeStore) implement
Closeable and the close logic does an instanceof check to determine
if the NodeStore has to be
closed or not
Which approach to take?
Chetan Mehrotra
. OR refer to the jars (pre defined names) as part of Class-Path
attribute of oak-run manifest and place the required jars in same
directory. In that can you can just run the jar with java -jar
Chetan Mehrotra
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
we
And then access the token value from the passed credential attribute
in session login call.
Wanted to check if this approach is ok or it should be done in a different way?
Chetan Mehrotra
[1]
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/oak/docs/security/authentication/preauthentication.html
[2]
http://svn.apache.org
benchmarking (possibly by
including the oak-run classes only
Various sub features in oak-run together do not still add much
complexity and are neatly seperated via various main methods. So
should be ok for now
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote
them in OSGi would again be tricky
Chetan Mehrotra
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org wrote:
On 27.5.14 4:48 , Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Michael Dürig mdue...@apache.org
wrote:
We can turn the jar in to an OSGi container
401 - 500 of 653 matches
Mail list logo
