[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707245#action_12707245 ] Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21: - I think all we need for the CLEINTTOB

[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707225#action_12707225 ] S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21: I agree, when you have 4 DOTNET

[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707223#action_12707223 ] Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21: - Example: Imagine I have Four DOTNET c

[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707221#action_12707221 ] Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21: - Hi Shankar, I mean run four scenarios

RE: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

I will put this comment in Jira where it belongs.. No need to reply to this email drew From: Drew Baird (Volt) Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:16 PM To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified conf

RE: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

Cool and +1 From: Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar [uthaiyashan...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:22 PM To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2) Hi Drew, On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Drew B

RE: [jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

I mean run four scenarios simultaneously having different configurations and as many machines as it takes but from one database. From: S.Uthaiyashankar (JIRA) [j...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:27 PM To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.org Su

[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707210#action_12707210 ] S.Uthaiyashankar commented on STONEHENGE-21: Hi Drew, What do you mean by

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

Hi Drew, On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Drew Baird (Volt) wrote: > Has anyone done a Linux/PHP -> Windows/dotnet scenario or the reverse? I tested dotnet_client -> PHP BS (linux) -> PHP OPS (linux) and it worked fine. Regards, Shankar > > > Is it needed for M1? On one hand it might be re

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

Hi, Can you tell specifically what the scenario? (Which Client, BS and OPS?). We tested all the combination and could not find any problem. Regards, Shankar On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Abu Obeida Bakhach wrote: > I did a sanity check, and its look great! > However, I couldn't get the WsHtt

RE: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

I did a sanity check, and its look great! However, I couldn't get the WsHttpBinding cases to work. can I still vote +1 despite that? Thanks, -Original Message- From: Chintana Wilamuna [mailto:chinta...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:27 AM To: stonehenge-dev@incubator.apache.or

[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707056#action_12707056 ] Andrew (Drew) commented on STONEHENGE-21: - I like that idea (dotnet config servi

[jira] Commented: (STONEHENGE-21) Having a unified configuration system

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STONEHENGE-21?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12707039#action_12707039 ] Ben Dewey commented on STONEHENGE-21: - What do people envision for the first step fo

RE: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

Has anyone done a Linux/PHP -> Windows/dotnet scenario or the reverse? Is it needed for M1? On one hand it might be required by the mentors/managers however I think we said originally that we wanted (for M1) to meet the level of interoperability demonstrated by MSFT/WSO2 in the original demo.

RE: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

Clean install of the binaries.zip worked. Installed DB and ran thru the entire interop guide successfully. +1 from me. Interop guide has: .NET Client -> .NET BS -> .NET OPS PHP Client -> PHP BS -> PHP OPS .NET Client -> PHP BS -> PHP OPS PHP Client -> WSAS BS -> WSAS OPS PHP

Re: [VOTE] Apache Stonehenge M1 Release (Take 2)

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar wrote: > Please test, review and vote on the release artifacts for Apache Stonehenge > M1 release. > > Here is my vote +1. I tested the following scenarios in Linux, PHP_BS -> PHP_OPS PHP_BS -> PHP_OPSSEC PHP_BS -> JAVA_OPS PHP_BS -> J