On 03/09/2015 03:21 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have posted a beta build for the new JMS client, in order to test
out the release process more and give people something fixed to test
around with before we release.
The source and binary archives for the beta can be grabbed from:
htt
Hi Rafi - thank you for that description. I'll have to dig into that code a
bit more to get a feel for it.
The only concern I have is the implementation of PN_HANDLE. If I'm correct,
you can't directly share PN_HANDLE's across compilation units due to the use of
static variables. In other wor
On 03/09/2015 06:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Can you pull this over to the 0.9 branch?
Done.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
On 9 March 2015 at 19:21, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have posted a beta build for the new JMS client, in order to test
> out the release process more and give people something fixed to test
> around with before we release.
>
> The source and binary archives for the beta can be grab
Hi everyone,
I have posted a beta build for the new JMS client, in order to test
out the release process more and give people something fixed to test
around with before we release.
The source and binary archives for the beta can be grabbed from:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/jms/0.1
FYI, unlike previous releases I've created a 0.9 branch so that work can
continue on trunk without impacting the release. Please ensure that any
fixes intended for the release actually end up on the 0.9 release branch.
--Rafael
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Hi Everyo
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that the 0.9rc1 marks the
> pn_XXX_get_context()/pn_XXX_set_context() set of APIs as being deprecated.
>
> I use these apis fairly frequently as a means to map back to my
> application's context.
>
> What are they being r
+1 for Option 1
+0 for Option 3
-1 for Option 2
-2 for Option 4
-2 for No Change
Thanks for addressing this issue.
- Original Message -
> From: "Robbie Gemmell"
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 12:24:43 PM
> Subject: handling old Subversion contents after migrati
The only one I'm strongly opposed to is #4.
I slightly prefer #3 of the remaining options. It gets the old content out of
the way without deleting it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:25 PM
> To: users@qpid.ap
Can you pull this over to the 0.9 branch?
--Rafael
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 02:14 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
>
>> Additionally, the following python unit tests fail unless the openssl
>> libraries are installed:
>>
>> proton_tests.engine.ServerTest.testIdleT
Can you pull this over to the 0.9 branch?
--Rafael
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> FWIW: pushed a fix to these doc errors:
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-proton.git;a=commit;h=bc2b630eb969710b04a861797567ab2dc368020a
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message --
No separate RFI needed. Thanks!
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> yep - i was going to request these changes today - been caught in meetings
> until now.
>
> Do you want a separate RFI mail, or will this do as the request for
> inclusion?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
FWIW: pushed a fix to these doc errors:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-proton.git;a=commit;h=bc2b630eb969710b04a861797567ab2dc368020a
- Original Message -
> From: "Ken Giusti"
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Cc: pro...@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 9:13:
Hi Justin,
yep - i was going to request these changes today - been caught in meetings
until now.
Do you want a separate RFI mail, or will this do as the request for
inclusion?
Thanks,
Rob
On 9 March 2015 at 18:26, Justin Ross wrote:
> Rob, I looked around and didn't see these requested anywhe
Rob, I looked around and didn't see these requested anywhere. Do you want
them for 0.32? I've looked at the changes on QPID-6437 and it seems like
all of them should go to 0.32.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> I tried out the changes by applying the 3 commits for QPID-
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 06:56 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Ok, I'll push out a 0.9 RC ASAP.
>
> On the general topic of API stability, I think the key measure of
> "stability" that I would personally like to see (be it 0.9 or 0.10) is not
> that we somehow freeze APIs and guarantee to never chan
I've tested this against dispatch trunk and 0.4 branch with no problems,
so this looks good to me apart from the SSL issue mentioned below.
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 14:39 +, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 02:14 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> > Additionally, the following python unit tests fail unless
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 09:13 -0400, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Anyone else getting the following errors when building the docs?
>
>
> ;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
> ;; If you want to create a file, visit that file with C-x C-f,
> ;; then enter the text in t
Hi all,
As you probably know, we migrated the Proton and new JMS client code
to Git repositories last year. As part of the process the old
locations within the Subversion repo were frozen read-only and left in
place.
Some folks have been caught out by using the old stale locations, as
although we
On 03/09/2015 02:14 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
Additionally, the following python unit tests fail unless the openssl libraries
are installed:
proton_tests.engine.ServerTest.testIdleTimeout
proton_tests.engine.ServerTest.testKeepalive
proton_tests.messenger.IdleTimeoutTest.testIdleTimeout
proton_test
Hi,
I just noticed that the 0.9rc1 marks the
pn_XXX_get_context()/pn_XXX_set_context() set of APIs as being deprecated.
I use these apis fairly frequently as a means to map back to my application's
context.
What are they being replaced with? I couldn't find an associated JIRA
explaining ho
- Original Message -
> From: "Rafael Schloming"
> To: pro...@qpid.apache.org
> Cc: users@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 6:56:49 AM
> Subject: Re: 0.9 release schedule
>
> Ok, I'll push out a 0.9 RC ASAP.
>
> On the general topic of API stability, I think the key measure
Additionally, the following python unit tests fail unless the openssl libraries
are installed:
proton_tests.engine.ServerTest.testIdleTimeout
proton_tests.engine.ServerTest.testKeepalive
proton_tests.messenger.IdleTimeoutTest.testIdleTimeout
proton_tests.utils.SyncRequestResponseTest.test_request
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 09:13:07AM -0400, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Anyone else getting the following errors when building the docs?
>
>
> ;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
> ;; If you want to create a file, visit that file with C-x C-f,
> ;; then enter the te
Anyone else getting the following errors when building the docs?
;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
;; If you want to create a file, visit that file with C-x C-f,
;; then enter the text in that file's own buffer.
Generating example index...
finalizing in
Hi Everyone,
I've posted 0.9-rc-1 in the usual places. Please have a look and register
your vote:
Source code can be found here:
http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-proton-0.9-rc-1/
Java binaries are here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheqpid-1025
[ ] Yes,
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
> In PROTON-818, Cliff has introduced some examples using the C reactor
> interfaces. For simple programs, they are pretty long.
>
> - reactor-recv.c - http://goo.gl/4QkqsE - 447 lines
> - reactor-send.c - http://goo.gl/Zcg9Sy - 389 lines
>
Ok, I'll push out a 0.9 RC ASAP.
On the general topic of API stability, I think the key measure of
"stability" that I would personally like to see (be it 0.9 or 0.10) is not
that we somehow freeze APIs and guarantee to never change them, but rather
that we change them in ways that are backwards co
28 matches
Mail list logo
