On Sep 28, 2006, at 2:43 AM, Joachim Draeger wrote:
Am Samstag, den 23.09.2006, 18:44 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
phoenix is able to reload an application or to deploy a new
application
without restarting the full container. If you put a new sar file
in the
apps folder it try to deploy
been added to the James wiki.
Bernd
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to extend James' JMX operations and attributes. In the first
stage, this would cover the functionalities already covered by the
RemoteManager.
Upgrading MX4
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I spoke with Jason van Zyl, and although I prefer that we continue to
use
Ant rather than Maven, for interim use when necessary, we can
compromise by
agreeing to use the `maven ant` command and maintaining the resulting
build.xml file in svn for
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I spoke with Jason van Zyl, and although I prefer that we continue to use
Ant rather than Maven, for interim use when necessary, we can compromise by
agreeing to use the `maven ant` command and maintaining the resulting
build.xml file in svn for any JAMES project that uses
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
This is a big message and I don't have too much time, but it deserve
some questions/answers
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
I'd like to share some thoughts on a future configuration
architecture within James.
= Roles involved in configuration process =
[...
= Some observations
Rick McGuire wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Rick McGuire wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Why would we need both?
We don't need both at the same time.
But:
1) I guess that geronimo-javamail is not as stable and feature
complete as th
Rick McGuire wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Why would we need both?
We don't need both at the same time.
But:
1) I guess that geronimo-javamail is not as stable and feature
complete as the sun-javamail.
2) We use javamail 1.4 apis (ger
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Why would we need both?
We don't need both at the same time.
But:
1) I guess that geronimo-javamail is not as stable and feature
complete as the sun-javamail.
2) We use javamail 1.4 apis (geronimo-javamail seems to be 1.3 compliant)
So w
ribution (or even
to the source build dependencies)..
Any idea?
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Rick McGuire wrote:
Ok, on to the next phase of the javamail reorganization. This patch
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2147
is to remove the javamail-transport module and replace it with
r
Rick McGuire wrote:
Ok, on to the next phase of the javamail reorganization. This patch
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2147
is to remove the javamail-transport module and replace it with
references to the javamail-providers-1.3.1 jar file.
Rick
+1
BTW, do you think that this
Who's going? Will there be a Hackathon?
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to extend James' JMX operations and attributes. In the first
stage, this would cover the functionalities already covered by the
RemoteManager.
Currently, there is interface JamesMBean, conta
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to extend James' JMX operations and attributes. In the first
stage, this would cover the functionalities already covered by the
RemoteManager.
Currently, there is interface JamesMBean, containing only addUser.
This interface is implemented by class James. Th
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Norman,
As far as I know, it will be you, me, Danny and Vincenzo. I will arrive on
Saturday and leave on the Wednesday after ApacheCon.
I'll be here too!
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I've started a proof of concept for building James with Maven 2 in
the Geronimo sandbox. I'll post an email when I have something to
look at.
Comments?
We voted (succesfully) to grant
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I've started a proof of concept for building James with Maven 2 in
the Geronimo sandbox. I'll post an email when I have something to
look at.
Comments?
We voted (succesfully) to grant you rights on james sandbox but the
process to e
I've started a proof of concept for building James with Maven 2 in the
Geronimo sandbox. I'll post an email when I have something to look at.
Comments?
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addition
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I want to critically look at the statement
if (obj instanceof Disposable) (Disposable) obj).dispose();
More frequently you will find ContainerUtil.dispose(obj) that is the
same thing, but cleaner to read and simplify code "browsability"
I didn't want to follow up on the thread about interfaces vs. reflection.
I want to critically look at the statement
if (obj instanceof Disposable) (Disposable) obj).dispose();
which is being used not in the container but inside server objects.
This strikes me as odd since IMO the interface s
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
When we were looking for an ORB for Geronimo, I tried to embed
OpenORB. This project uses Avalon. Because Avalon courses through
the veins of every aspect of OpenORB, it was impossible to embed an
ORB into Geronimo w/out bringing in everything
ch it would mean leave maven2 behind.
So, my idea is:
1) let's evaluate the maven2 port and vote on its adoption.
2) After the vote we can safely start refactorings in branches.
Stefano
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I insist that pojoification itself is "almost meaningless" and
utopisti
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We don't depend on the container itself.
We don't have dependencies on phoenix in our code.
We depend on the avalon-framework: think at it as a set of mostly
interfaces and basic classes that helps starting up a new project (a
common way
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
As for XBean, I favor OSGi interfaces, particularly as OSG
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
Let's separate the two issues, shall we?
Personally,
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote:
[...]
What is a service? In James and many other early container oriented
applications it is something provided from outside of the application.
Application objects are assumed to be present and referenced directly
from
within the code. They are treate
Steve Brewin wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
It seems that if there is one thing that stirs us up it is container issues.
At their most basic, containers provides the glue to wire application
specific objects together and provide them with the service they require.
Application objects are simple P
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I currently don't have an opinion on what it is better for us
between j2ee, OSGi, XBean, Phoenix, , but I
think that we should choose one. This is way I'm really interested
in pro/con
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Can XBean split the configuration in 2 multiple files?
We currently have assembly.xml to declare how the component
dependencies/wiring and config.xml to fill in configurations for
that components.
I don't think so. I've had some ex
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
wouldn't it be best to POJO-fy _first_ without a specific container
in mind (a larger task on its own) and then afterwards look at all
the mature containers to integrate with?
My thoughts exactly. IMHO, if the cont
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
IMHO OSGi specifications themselves are too low-level for James needs.
We probably need an abstraction layer (avalon-osgi bridge or
avalon-somelayer bridge) to simplify this move.
Well ... :-) XBeans will apparently provide a b
Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 4/13/2006 2:22 PM:
Eat our own dogfood: http://incubator.apache.org/felix (nee Oscar).
+1
Regards,
Alan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/13/2006 1:32 PM:
IF we decide to go with the OSGi/JSR 291 container specification we also need
to decide on an implementation. The one we test against and deliver in the
distribution.
Does anyone have any OSGi implementation preferences?
I'm minded towards http://w
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I currently don't have an opinion on what it is better for us between
j2ee, OSGi, XBean, Phoenix, , but I think
that we should choose one. This is way I'm really interested in
pro/cons of XBean.
AFAIK, XBean is to become the 'next generation c
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
wouldn't it be best to POJO-fy _first_ without a specific container in
mind (a larger task on its own) and then afterwards look at all the
mature containers to integrate with?
My thoughts exactly. IMHO, if the container makes you do weird things
with your design at th
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Can XBean split the configuration in 2 multiple files?
We currently have assembly.xml to declare how the component
dependencies/wiring and config.xml to fill in configurations for that
components.
I don't think so. I've had some ex
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 3:34 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:55 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
Cool. So what is your opinion of Maven 2 and XBean?
Two separate issues.
I don't see a lot of issues raised around the build procedure.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote, On 4/6/2006 8:52 AM:
Stefano Bagnara wrote, On 4/5/2006 3:19 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that what the work will entail is POJO-ifying James. XBean
is just a way of stitching the POJOs in an IOC type of way. I think
that one could add some OSGi adapters on
Stefano Bagnara wrote, On 4/5/2006 3:19 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that what the work will entail is POJO-ifying James. XBean
is just a way of stitching the POJOs in an IOC type of way. I think
that one could add some OSGi adapters on top, if one wanted to. The
nice thing about
Stefano Bagnara wrote, On 4/5/2006 2:07 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2
and XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to convert a small piece and solicit comments.
I think that you should try to split t
Steve Brewin wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:55 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to
maven 2 and
XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to
convert a small piece and solicit comments.
You might want to solicit comment
Bernd Fondermann wrote, On 4/5/2006 1:08 PM:
Alan Cabrera wrote:
I'm going to investigate what it takes to convert James to maven 2
and XBean. I realize that others may not like that idea. My
thinking is to convert a small piece and solicit comments.
In general, I'd like the idea of Jame
41 matches
Mail list logo
