I'm not sure what to do about this. It must be the same building the SDO 1.0 and 1.1 releases right as they use the same EMF releases and no one has complained about it there, so i wondered about just documenting the issue in the BUILDING file? Or any other suggestions?
...ant On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, after really multiple times (about 5 or 6) I got a sucessful > build. But how would our users feel by experiencing this issue ? > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:35 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So thats works ok for two, doesn't work for one. > > > > Luciano, I had to build a couple of times with -U to get all the emf jars > > successfully downloaded, have you tried that or can you find any other > way > > to get a build through in your environment? > > > > ...ant > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Murtaza Goga > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I built this release last night, built clean. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ant elder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:29 AM > >> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release SDO 1.1.1 > >> > >> I'd like to get this voted on and released but nervous to start that > >> after > >> Kelvin had trouble getting the emf dependencies, could any one else try > >> building the tag and seeing if it works or not for them - > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.1.1-R > >> C2/- > >> its a small checkout and doesn't take long to build. > >> > >> ...ant > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:15 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > It seems to work fine for me, the binary distribution ends up with a > >> lib > >> > folder containing: > >> > > >> > backport-util-concurrent-3.0.jar > >> > codegen-2.2.3.jar > >> > codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar > >> > common-2.2.3.jar > >> > ecore-2.2.3.jar > >> > ecore-change-2.2.3.jar > >> > ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar > >> > sample-sdo-1.1.1.jar > >> > stax-api-1.0.1.jar > >> > tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1-1.1.1.jar > >> > tuscany-sdo-impl-1.1.1.jar > >> > tuscany-sdo-lib-1.1.1.jar > >> > tuscany-sdo-tools-1.1.1.jar > >> > wstx-asl-3.2.1.jar > >> > xsd-2.2.3.jar > >> > > >> > I've put the distributions that I get from the 1.1.1-RC2 tag up at > >> > > >> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC2<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC2> > <http://people.a > >> pache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC2>, > >> > how do they look? > >> > > >> > ...ant > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:18 PM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Luciano, > >> >> yes, I added that workaround, and that satisfied most of the EMF > >> jars, > >> >> but not these two. It's odd, the 2 jars we need are there in the > >> >> repository > >> >> you suggested, but maven will not download them. > >> >> > >> >> Kelvin. > >> >> > >> >> 2008/6/6 Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> >> > Did you try the workaround I mentioned before on this thread [1] > >> where > >> >> > I added a new repository ? It was actually for other jars, but > >> might > >> >> > help in this case as well... > >> >> > > >> >> > [1] > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg31727.html > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:56 AM, kelvin goodson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > I've made all the changes required in the tag [1] to get rid of > >> the > >> >> felix > >> >> > > jars, find and include the emf jars, and I've removed the > >> incubating > >> >> > tag, > >> >> > > DISCLAIMER files etc. However, I'm currently stumped as to why > >> two > >> >> emf > >> >> > > jars available [2] and [3] don't get downloaded by the build. > >> The > >> >> build > >> >> > > output complains about URLs that, if cut and pasted into a > >> browser, > >> >> work > >> >> > > fine. Any clues to explain this odd maven behaviour are welcome. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Kelvin > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > [1] > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.1.1-R > >> C2/ > >> >> > > [2] > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://ftp.ussg.iu.edu/eclipse/modeling/emf/emf/maven2/org/eclipse/emf/c > >> odegen/2.2.3/ > >> >> > > [3] > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://ftp.ussg.iu.edu/eclipse/modeling/emf/emf/maven2/org/eclipse/emf/c > >> odegen-ecore/2.2.3/ > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2008/6/3 Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> Kelvin, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Sorry about the delay in getting back to you - I can see that > >> you > >> >> have > >> >> > >> found > >> >> > >> a solution. Yes, you are absolutely right, the felix framework > >> should > >> >> > use > >> >> > >> scope "provided" since SdoBundleActivator is only used when SDO > >> is > >> >> > running > >> >> > >> inside an OSGi container, and the framework classes are provided > >> by > >> >> the > >> >> > >> container. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On 6/3/08, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Just a thought, would I be right in guessing that if ever our > >> >> > >> > SdoBundleActivator is touched in the runtime, then the > >> environment > >> >> > would > >> >> > >> > be > >> >> > >> > expected to provide the classes to satisfy > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > import org.osgi.framework.BundleActivator; > >> >> > >> > import org.osgi.framework.BundleContext; > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > ? > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > in which case I think declaring a "provided" scope for the > >> felix > >> >> > >> dependency > >> >> > >> > would be the right way to do things > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > Thanks Ant, that looks like progress, but the felix > >> framework > >> >> jar > >> >> > is > >> >> > >> > now > >> >> > >> > > not in the list of distributed jars. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > 2008/6/3 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > Adding an exclude for felix to the distribution pom can fix > >> that, > >> >> eg > >> >> > >> > here's > >> >> > >> > >> local changes i have just tried: > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Index: src/main/assembly/bin.xml > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> =================================================================== > >> >> > >> > >> --- src/main/assembly/bin.xml (revision 662488) > >> >> > >> > >> +++ src/main/assembly/bin.xml (working copy) > >> >> > >> > >> @@ -120,13 +120,13 @@ > >> >> > >> > >> <dependencySets> > >> >> > >> > >> <dependencySet> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> <outputDirectory>tuscany-sdo-${sdo.version}/lib</outputDirectory> > >> >> > >> > >> - <includes> > >> >> > >> > >> - > >> >> > >> > >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1</include> > >> >> > >> > >> + <!-- includes> > >> >> > >> > >> + > >> >> > >> > >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1</include> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-lib</include> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-impl</include> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-tools</include> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:sample-sdo</include> > >> >> > >> > >> - </includes> > >> >> > >> > >> + </includes --> > >> >> > >> > >> <fileMode>0644</fileMode> > >> >> > >> > >> </dependencySet> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Index: pom.xml > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> =================================================================== > >> >> > >> > >> --- pom.xml (revision 662488) > >> >> > >> > >> +++ pom.xml (working copy) > >> >> > >> > >> @@ -56,6 +56,12 @@ > >> >> > >> > >> <groupId>org.apache.tuscany.sdo</groupId> > >> >> > >> > >> <artifactId>tuscany-sdo-impl</artifactId> > >> >> > >> > >> <version>${pom.version}</version> > >> >> > >> > >> + <exclusions> > >> >> > >> > >> + <exclusion> > >> >> > >> > >> + <groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId> > >> >> > >> > >> + > >> >> <artifactId>org.apache.felix.main</artifactId> > >> >> > >> > >> + </exclusion> > >> >> > >> > >> + </exclusions> > >> >> > >> > >> </dependency> > >> >> > >> > >> <dependency> > >> >> > >> > >> <groupId>org.apache.tuscany.sdo</groupId> > >> >> > >> > >> @@ -67,6 +73,7 @@ > >> >> > >> > >> <artifactId>sample-sdo</artifactId> > >> >> > >> > >> <version>${pom.version}</version> > >> >> > >> > >> </dependency> > >> >> > >> > >> + > >> >> > >> > >> </dependencies> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> <build> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> Which results in a lib directory containing: > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> backport-util-concurrent-3.0.jar > >> >> > >> > >> codegen-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> common-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> ecore-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> ecore-change-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> sample-sdo-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar > >> >> > >> > >> stax-api-1.0.1.jar > >> >> > >> > >> tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar > >> >> > >> > >> tuscany-sdo-impl-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar > >> >> > >> > >> tuscany-sdo-lib-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar > >> >> > >> > >> tuscany-sdo-tools-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar > >> >> > >> > >> wstx-asl-3.2.1.jar > >> >> > >> > >> xsd-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> ...ant > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM, kelvin goodson < > >> >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> > >> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > I had an offline chat with Rajini. It seems we need just > >> the > >> >> > >> > framework > >> >> > >> > >> jar > >> >> > >> > >> > of felix in the distro, but if the dependency on felix > >> is > >> >> > declared > >> >> > >> as > >> >> > >> > >> test > >> >> > >> > >> > scope in the pom, then that jar is not available to main > >> >> phase > >> >> > of > >> >> > >> the > >> >> > >> > >> > build. If its not declared as test scope then we get 5 > >> felix > >> >> > jars > >> >> > >> in > >> >> > >> > >> the > >> >> > >> > >> > binary distro. Rajini's going to take a look when she > >> gets > >> >> some > >> >> > >> time. > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> The felix jars were introduced in the fix for "SDO does > >> not > >> >> > work > >> >> > >> > with > >> >> > >> > >> >> OSGi" [1] in commit 620763 [2]. I don't know if this is > >> >> > expected > >> >> > >> > >> >> behaviour, not being an OSGI expert. Comments anyone? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1293 > >> >> > >> > >> >> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=620763 > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> The required libraries are > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> sample-sdo-%RELEASE%.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> sdo-api-r2.1-%RELEASE%.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> tuscany-sdo-lib-%RELEASE%.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> tuscany-sdo-impl-%RELEASE%.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> tuscany-sdo-tools-%RELEASE%.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> codegen-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> ecore-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> ecore-change-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> common-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> xsd-2.2.3.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> stax-api-1.0.1.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> wstx-asl-3.2.0.jar > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> with > >> >> > >> > >> >>> backport-util-concurrent being optional if you want > >> >> threadsafe > >> >> > >> > >> >>> collections with Java 1.4 IIRC > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> The felix jar inclusions were introduced some time > >> between > >> >> > commit > >> >> > >> > >> level > >> >> > >> > >> >>> 600913 and 627754; I'm working on narrowing this down > >> at > >> >> the > >> >> > >> > moment. > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> 2008/6/2 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> It is strange. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> Removing the <includes> at the bottom of the assembly > >> >> bin.xml > >> >> > >> > changes > >> >> > >> > >> it > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> so > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> that the dependencies do get included again, but > >> several > >> >> felix > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> dependencies > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> also get dragged in. What is the complete list of jars > >> that > >> >> > >> should > >> >> > >> > be > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> included? > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> ...ant > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM, kelvin goodson < > >> >> > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > This failure also occurs with the 2.1 version and > >> the > >> >> > >> 2.2-beta-1 > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> version. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > The current trunk version is 2.2-beta-3-SNAPSHOT, > >> which > >> >> I > >> >> > >> > haven't > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> found in > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > a repository yet, so the only version that seems > >> ever to > >> >> > have > >> >> > >> > >> worked > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> is > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > the > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > 2.2-SNAPSHOT version. I have taken a look at the > >> assembly > >> >> > >> plugin > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> JIRAs, > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > but > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > it's hard to trawl that since so many JIRAs > >> reference the > >> >> > word > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> dependency. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > It's not clear to me whether we benefited from a > >> freak > >> >> bug > >> >> > that > >> >> > >> > was > >> >> > >> > >> to > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> our > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > advantage in the 2.2-SNAPSHOT version or whether all > >> the > >> >> > other > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> versions > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > have > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > a bug/bugs. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > 2008/6/2 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > I have pinned down the change that caused the > >> absence > >> >> of > >> >> > EMF > >> >> > >> > jars > >> >> > >> > >> in > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> the > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > distribution zip to be the switch from the maven > >> >> assembly > >> >> > >> > plugin > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> version > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > 2.2-SNAPSHOT to the 2.2-beta-2 as altered here > >> [1]. > >> >> I > >> >> > hope > >> >> > >> > to > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> look at > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > this again soon, but have to stop for now. If > >> anyone > >> >> has > >> >> > >> any > >> >> > >> > >> views > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> on > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > what > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > version we should be using please pipe up. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > [1] > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/pom.xml?r1=62869 > >> 1&r2=642349&pathrev=642349&diff_format=h > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > 2008/5/19 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > I'm looking at fixing a problem wrt running the > >> samples > >> >> at > >> >> > >> the > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> moment. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> Also, I found that with a combination of using > >> IBM JDK > >> >> > 1.5 > >> >> > >> and > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> maven > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > 2.0.7 > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> I got hit by > >> >> > >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAVADOC-135when > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> trying > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > to > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> build from the top. We say in our BUILDING doc > >> that > >> >> > 2.0.7 > >> >> > >> is > >> >> > >> > >> OK, > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > perhaps > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> if we need to respin we should raise that in > >> order to > >> >> > avoid > >> >> > >> > IBM > >> >> > >> > >> JDK > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > users > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> hitting this issue. It's fine with 2.0.9 > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> Kelvin. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> 2008/5/18 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> Please review and vote on the SDO 1.1.1 release. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> The artifacts including binary and source > >> >> distributions, > >> >> > >> > >> staging > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> maven > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> repo > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> and release notes are available at > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> > > >> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > <http://people. > >> apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> > >> < > >> >> > >> > http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> < > >> >> http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > < > >> >> > http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> < > >> >> > >> http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/ > >> >> > >> > >. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> The only difference between this and the 1.1 > >> release > >> >> is > >> >> > the > >> >> > >> > fix > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> for > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> > >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2240. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> +1 from me. > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> ...ant > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> -- > >> >> > >> Thank you... > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Regards, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Rajini > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Luciano Resende > >> >> > Apache Tuscany Committer > >> >> > > >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > >> < > >> >> http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > >> >> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
