Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Just for information (don't know if it's relevant to us), the following > thread where Edward seems to have fun :) > > Read Dan's points 1 and 2. I resigned from Legal Affairs last year but AFACT nothing much has changed since t

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

Oops, Sounds like I forgot the link: http://markmail.org/message/ufppyyaf66b345jq @ On 06/07/11 10:43, Norman Maurer wrote: Hi Eric, what are you refering to ? Bye, Norman Am 06.07.2011 10:25, schrieb Eric Charles: Hi Robert, Just for information (don't know if it's relevant to us), the fo

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

Hi Eric, what are you refering to ? Bye, Norman Am 06.07.2011 10:25, schrieb Eric Charles: Hi Robert, Just for information (don't know if it's relevant to us), the following thread where Edward seems to have fun :) Read Dan's points 1 and 2. Thx. On 03/07/11 21:32, Norman Maurer wrote:

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

Hi Robert, Just for information (don't know if it's relevant to us), the following thread where Edward seems to have fun :) Read Dan's points 1 and 2. Thx. On 03/07/11 21:32, Norman Maurer wrote: I think we should release them as 3.0.0 beta also, as I really would like to 'fix' the osgi stu

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

I think we should release them as 3.0.0 beta also, as I really would like to 'fix' the osgi stuff before call it 'final' bye norman Am Sonntag, 3. Juli 2011 schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin : > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Norman Maurer > wrote: >> hi there, >> >> I

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Norman Maurer wrote: > hi there, > > I will update the source to work with mailbox 0.3 and start a VOTE for > the artifacts. So stay tuned... IMO it's best to release the server components as 3.0.0 and then apache-james as a beta Robert --

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

hi there, I will update the source to work with mailbox 0.3 and start a VOTE for the artifacts. So stay tuned... bye norman Am Samstag, 2. Juli 2011 schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin : > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > > > >> If I understand well, you p

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > If I understand well, you prefer some fixed/official released artifacts to > apply you audit? Yes The artifacts included in the assembled application need to be fixed before they can be audited. Robert ---

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > On 02/07/11 09:14, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> I hope to find some time to re-integrate (or at least run) the mpt >> smoke tests > > Do you mean the mailbox-integration-tests, or

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

Hi Robert, In the meantime, I've added app to the 'current' pom. If I understand well, you prefer some fixed/official released artifacts to apply you audit? If this is the case, I better understand the motivation behind the app module. Thx. On 02/07/11 10:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: O

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > On 02/07/11 09:14, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > I've added a svn:externals property on current > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/james/current/ Great > 'mvn install' in app gives me the zip/tar.gz. > 'sudo ./run.sh' starts fine. > So we are

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On 02/07/11 09:14, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin I hope to find some time to re-integrate (or at least run) the mpt smoke tests Do you mean the mailbox-integration-tests, or other mpt tests? but if anyone could build and test the applicati

Re: James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On 02/07/11 09:14, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Norman Maurer wrote: Ok then go ahead I just want to get the beta out soon enough So do I :-) I'm started work on the assembly but I'm out of

James App Assembly [WAS Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Norman Maurer > wrote: >> Ok then go ahead I just want to get the beta out soon enough > > So do I :-) > > I'm started work on the assembly but I'm out of time for tonight. Feel > free to disable

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Norman Maurer wrote: > Ok then go ahead I just want to get the beta out soon enough So do I :-) I'm started work on the assembly but I'm out of time for tonight. Feel free to disable the assembly stuff in server trunk. As soon as that's done, you should be ab

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

Ok then go ahead I just want to get the beta out soon enough Bye Norman 2011/6/30, Robert Burrell Donkin : > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Norman Maurer wrote: >> Am 30.06.2011 14:27, schrieb Eric Charles: >>> >>> On 30/06/11 14:19, Norman Maurer wrote: >>> (snip) > > The main issu

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Norman Maurer wrote: > Am 30.06.2011 14:27, schrieb Eric Charles: >> >> On 30/06/11 14:19, Norman Maurer wrote: >> (snip) The main issues for me are a slow development cycle caused by unnecessary integration and targeting a moving target. IMO elimina

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

Am 30.06.2011 14:27, schrieb Eric Charles: On 30/06/11 14:19, Norman Maurer wrote: (snip) The main issues for me are a slow development cycle caused by unnecessary integration and targeting a moving target. IMO eliminating this bottleneck will save more time than the cost of cutting the additio

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On 30/06/11 14:19, Norman Maurer wrote: (snip) The main issues for me are a slow development cycle caused by unnecessary integration and targeting a moving target. IMO eliminating this bottleneck will save more time than the cost of cutting the additional release. Once we have a smooth pipeline,

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

Am 30.06.2011 14:17, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Eric Charles wrote: I was just wondering, especially when I see how the other Apache projects create there releases, if we could rely for beta2 on a manual check, and report the automated track for next rel

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Eric Charles wrote: > I was just wondering, especially when I see how the other Apache projects > create there releases, if we could rely for beta2 on a manual check, and > report the automated track for next release. A fully released automated tool set is unl

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On 30/06/11 12:46, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote: Hi, If I understand well, we would ship some jars, but not an archive with the needed startup scripts? I don't expect much users for it... This change is about separating concerns and reducin

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: > Am 30.06.2011 12:46, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin: >>> Also, we are in the process of releasing a beta2, not the final release. >>> Could we be a bit more relax on the NOTICE and plan the maintainable >>> solution based on a tool for the

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I don't get why this should improve things. IMHO its just another thing > which needs care, we already have to many projects for our current devs .. > Maybe you can give some more background.. Auditing and maintaining the fina

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

Am 30.06.2011 12:46, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote: Hi, If I understand well, we would ship some jars, but not an archive with the needed startup scripts? I don't expect much users for it... This change is about separating concerns and redu

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > Hi, > > If I understand well, we would ship some jars, but not an archive with the > needed startup scripts? I don't expect much users for it... This change is about separating concerns and reducing conflicts. The libraries composing the jame

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

Hi, If I understand well, we would ship some jars, but not an archive with the needed startup scripts? I don't expect much users for it... Also, we are in the process of releasing a beta2, not the final release. Could we be a bit more relax on the NOTICE and plan the maintainable solution ba

Re: Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

Hi Robert, I don't get why this should improve things. IMHO its just another thing which needs care, we already have to many projects for our current devs .. Maybe you can give some more background.. Bye, Norman Am 30.06.2011 09:21, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin: We're really close now to b

Factor Out James Application Assembly ...?

We're really close now to being able to ship a James 3 release. It's frustrating that work's still needed on the final assembly (of the application from the built server components). It looks likely that we're going to face ongoing maintenance issues (in this area) until improved tooling is develop