You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2007/06/26 23:30:10 UTC
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
What would be your preference?
- 1 week
- 2 weeks
- 3 weeks
- 1 month
My preference would be (in this order):
- 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
- 2 weeks (if we're not too disciplined and expect to lag a week)
I'd like to see us get our hot deploy hooked up, some ejb validation
code in there, and our sun schema issue cleared up.
What are your preferences? (as usual floor is open to everyone, not
just committers)
-David
On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> I think we're ready to pull the trigger on 3.0
>
> Thinks look pretty great: http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/ejb-3-
> roadmap.html
>
> No service-ref support in OpenEJB standalone yet, I don't think
> that's enough to hold us up though. Compliance-wise, we couldn't
> look much better ;)
>
> What do people think?
>
> I can think of the interceptor issues that Prasad has raised, but
> fixes for those could easily go into a 3.0.1, which based on passed
> experience will likely have to rush out soon after people start
> complaining about 3.0.0 :)
>
> -David
>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Manu George wrote:
>
>> +1 for this idea as well
>>
>> On 3/21/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/21/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Dain...
>>> > >
>>> > > I like your idea, but IMHO I think we have to wait until we make
>>> > > sure that
>>> > > the minimum set of EJB3.0 features are implemented, by examining
>>> > > the list
>>> > > provided by DBlevins. Then we can make the OEJB3.0 release
>>> out to
>>> > > the light.
>>> >
>>> > We should probably go through that list and decide what the must
>>> > haves are and what we can do without.
>>> >
>>> > For example, IMHO we can do without the Validation, iTests, and
>>> > Examples sections. We could definitely work on the validation
>>> part
>>> > while people are giving us some initial feedback on the release
>>> > content overall. I suspect user feedback might also how we
>>> > prioritize completing the itests.
>>> >
>>> > Might be some other ones that aren't critical too.
>>> >
>>> > -David
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 for this idea
>>>
>>> > On 3/21/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I think we should just ship what we have now as "3.0". We
>>> have tons
>>> > >> of new exciting stuff and people can start working with it.
>>> As they
>>> > >> find issues we can release updates.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I've been mainly working on the 2.x stuff and it is pretty
>>> close to
>>> > >> be fully complete, but I don't think it is worth waiting
>>> around for
>>> > >> some infrequently used features to be finished.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> -dain
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:15 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > I've been wondering when we should start kicking some
>>> releases from
>>> > >> > the 3x branch out the door. I can't seem to come up with
>>> a good
>>> > >> > answer even in my own mind about when this should be.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Seems we're doing really great as far as functionality and
>>> > >> > implementing EJB3 is concerned. We still have a ways to
>>> go, but
>>> > >> > not too far actually.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Should we start shipping releases? If so what do we call
>>> them and
>>> > >> > when do we start? If not what do we need to get done?
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Thoughts? (floor's open to all, committer or not)
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > -David
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Thanks
>>> > > - Mohammad Nour
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks
>>> - Mohammad Nour
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Manu George <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 3 weeks though I am not sure whether I can contribute much :(.
My apologies
Regards
Manu
On 6/27/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on 3 weeks
>
> On 6/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> > We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
> > issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
> >
> > What would be your preference?
> >
> > - 1 week
> > - 2 weeks
> > - 3 weeks
> > - 1 month
> >
> > My preference would be (in this order):
> > - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
> > - 2 weeks (if we're not too disciplined and expect to lag a week)
> >
> > I'd like to see us get our hot deploy hooked up, some ejb validation
> > code in there, and our sun schema issue cleared up.
> >
> > What are your preferences? (as usual floor is open to everyone, not
> > just committers)
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> > > I think we're ready to pull the trigger on 3.0
> > >
> > > Thinks look pretty great: http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/ejb-3-
> > > roadmap.html
> > >
> > > No service-ref support in OpenEJB standalone yet, I don't think
> > > that's enough to hold us up though. Compliance-wise, we couldn't
> > > look much better ;)
> > >
> > > What do people think?
> > >
> > > I can think of the interceptor issues that Prasad has raised, but
> > > fixes for those could easily go into a 3.0.1, which based on passed
> > > experience will likely have to rush out soon after people start
> > > complaining about 3.0.0 :)
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > > On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Manu George wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 for this idea as well
> > >>
> > >> On 3/21/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 3/21/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Hi Dain...
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I like your idea, but IMHO I think we have to wait until we make
> > >>> > > sure that
> > >>> > > the minimum set of EJB3.0 features are implemented, by examining
> > >>> > > the list
> > >>> > > provided by DBlevins. Then we can make the OEJB3.0 release
> > >>> out to
> > >>> > > the light.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > We should probably go through that list and decide what the must
> > >>> > haves are and what we can do without.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > For example, IMHO we can do without the Validation, iTests, and
> > >>> > Examples sections. We could definitely work on the validation
> > >>> part
> > >>> > while people are giving us some initial feedback on the release
> > >>> > content overall. I suspect user feedback might also how we
> > >>> > prioritize completing the itests.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Might be some other ones that aren't critical too.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -David
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 for this idea
> > >>>
> > >>> > On 3/21/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> I think we should just ship what we have now as "3.0". We
> > >>> have tons
> > >>> > >> of new exciting stuff and people can start working with it.
> > >>> As they
> > >>> > >> find issues we can release updates.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> I've been mainly working on the 2.x stuff and it is pretty
> > >>> close to
> > >>> > >> be fully complete, but I don't think it is worth waiting
> > >>> around for
> > >>> > >> some infrequently used features to be finished.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> -dain
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:15 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> > I've been wondering when we should start kicking some
> > >>> releases from
> > >>> > >> > the 3x branch out the door. I can't seem to come up with
> > >>> a good
> > >>> > >> > answer even in my own mind about when this should be.
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Seems we're doing really great as far as functionality and
> > >>> > >> > implementing EJB3 is concerned. We still have a ways to
> > >>> go, but
> > >>> > >> > not too far actually.
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Should we start shipping releases? If so what do we call
> > >>> them and
> > >>> > >> > when do we start? If not what do we need to get done?
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Thoughts? (floor's open to all, committer or not)
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > -David
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --
> > >>> > > Thanks
> > >>> > > - Mohammad Nour
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> - Mohammad Nour
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> - Mohammad Nour
>
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 3 weeks
On 6/27/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
> issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
>
> What would be your preference?
>
> - 1 week
> - 2 weeks
> - 3 weeks
> - 1 month
>
> My preference would be (in this order):
> - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
> - 2 weeks (if we're not too disciplined and expect to lag a week)
>
> I'd like to see us get our hot deploy hooked up, some ejb validation
> code in there, and our sun schema issue cleared up.
>
> What are your preferences? (as usual floor is open to everyone, not
> just committers)
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> > I think we're ready to pull the trigger on 3.0
> >
> > Thinks look pretty great: http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/ejb-3-
> > roadmap.html
> >
> > No service-ref support in OpenEJB standalone yet, I don't think
> > that's enough to hold us up though. Compliance-wise, we couldn't
> > look much better ;)
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > I can think of the interceptor issues that Prasad has raised, but
> > fixes for those could easily go into a 3.0.1, which based on passed
> > experience will likely have to rush out soon after people start
> > complaining about 3.0.0 :)
> >
> > -David
> >
> > On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Manu George wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for this idea as well
> >>
> >> On 3/21/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 3/21/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi Dain...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I like your idea, but IMHO I think we have to wait until we make
> >>> > > sure that
> >>> > > the minimum set of EJB3.0 features are implemented, by examining
> >>> > > the list
> >>> > > provided by DBlevins. Then we can make the OEJB3.0 release
> >>> out to
> >>> > > the light.
> >>> >
> >>> > We should probably go through that list and decide what the must
> >>> > haves are and what we can do without.
> >>> >
> >>> > For example, IMHO we can do without the Validation, iTests, and
> >>> > Examples sections. We could definitely work on the validation
> >>> part
> >>> > while people are giving us some initial feedback on the release
> >>> > content overall. I suspect user feedback might also how we
> >>> > prioritize completing the itests.
> >>> >
> >>> > Might be some other ones that aren't critical too.
> >>> >
> >>> > -David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +1 for this idea
> >>>
> >>> > On 3/21/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I think we should just ship what we have now as "3.0". We
> >>> have tons
> >>> > >> of new exciting stuff and people can start working with it.
> >>> As they
> >>> > >> find issues we can release updates.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I've been mainly working on the 2.x stuff and it is pretty
> >>> close to
> >>> > >> be fully complete, but I don't think it is worth waiting
> >>> around for
> >>> > >> some infrequently used features to be finished.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> -dain
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:15 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> > I've been wondering when we should start kicking some
> >>> releases from
> >>> > >> > the 3x branch out the door. I can't seem to come up with
> >>> a good
> >>> > >> > answer even in my own mind about when this should be.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Seems we're doing really great as far as functionality and
> >>> > >> > implementing EJB3 is concerned. We still have a ways to
> >>> go, but
> >>> > >> > not too far actually.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Should we start shipping releases? If so what do we call
> >>> them and
> >>> > >> > when do we start? If not what do we need to get done?
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Thoughts? (floor's open to all, committer or not)
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > -David
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Thanks
> >>> > > - Mohammad Nour
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks
> >>> - Mohammad Nour
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 7/3/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's still m1, isn't it? I've been trying to
>> > migrate it to m2, but I'm not there yet.
>>
>> The m1 stuff hasn't worked since your m2 commit, so we could do it
>> manually or try to get one or the other working.
>
> Are you implying I busted the m1-based build? I thought I'm recovering
> it not destroying. Let me see what I can do to fix the overall
> perception ;-)
:) It may not be too far gone. In the assembly/openejb-standalone
module add back in the test.xml you commented out and it should
create a test client you can run from the command line as an
executable jar.
-David
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/3/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > It's still m1, isn't it? I've been trying to
> > migrate it to m2, but I'm not there yet.
>
> The m1 stuff hasn't worked since your m2 commit, so we could do it
> manually or try to get one or the other working.
Are you implying I busted the m1-based build? I thought I'm recovering
it not destroying. Let me see what I can do to fix the overall
perception ;-)
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 7/2/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Jacek, you want to try running the itests on the standalone server?
>
[..]
> Just to make sure I'm on the same track about the itests and the
> standalone server. The server boots fine after your changes, doesn't
> it?
Right.
> The task would be to run deploy the itests beans and run the
> itests, wouldn't it?
The manual process is to copy the itests ear into the apps/
directory, boot the server, then run the itests client with the right
stuff in it's classpath.
> It's still m1, isn't it? I've been trying to
> migrate it to m2, but I'm not there yet.
The m1 stuff hasn't worked since your m2 commit, so we could do it
manually or try to get one or the other working.
-David
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/2/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Jacek, you want to try running the itests on the standalone server?
I've been working on it, but found out that a NetBeans plugin for
Geronimo is what people asked when I played with it during the
presentations of mine. Eclipse support for Java EE is quite limited.
I'll get to the itests again in the meantime when Geronimos won't
respond to my questions about JMX Remote API vs MEJB or Timer Service
support ;-)
Just to make sure I'm on the same track about the itests and the
standalone server. The server boots fine after your changes, doesn't
it? The task would be to run deploy the itests beans and run the
itests, wouldn't it? It's still m1, isn't it? I've been trying to
migrate it to m2, but I'm not there yet.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Yes,
I tested it immediately after the patch was committed. works fine on
winxp2 (my machine)
On 7/2/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:25 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/26/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>> We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
> >>> issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
> >>>
> >>> What would be your preference?
> >>>
> >>> - 1 week
> >>> - 2 weeks
> >>> - 3 weeks
> >>> - 1 month
> >>>
> >>> My preference would be (in this order):
> >>> - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Could you point out the corners we should cut before release? I'm
> >> leaning towards releasing what's available now (as Geronimo
> >> certification is enough to ensure OpenEJB state as far as ejb3's
> >> concerned), but your question seems to imply otherwise.
> >
> > Server doesn't boot :( Run assemble and try and boot openejb-
> > standalone via the shell script.
>
> Got that issue resolved.
>
> -David
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
works like a breeze for me :).
Here is what i did:
- Disconnected the network
- I had a single EJB wrapped up in a jar and deployed it to the apps folder,
- started the server
- view the log file which showed that it had successfully deployed the ejb
- wrote a test client, looked up the ejb and called a method on it
Everything worked fine, did not see any errors or anything in the log
which mentions anything about downloading a schema or looking for a
schema.
Is that what I was supposed to do to test it? If this is what I was
supposed to do then the files can be deleted and OPENEJB-555 can be
closed.
On 7/3/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
>
> >> Still have to clear up the sun xsd issue as mentioned earlier.
> > I deleted the xsd files from openejb-jee scheme directory and rebuilt,
> > it worked fine. I also looked into the JaxbJavaee and we are using a
> > non-validating SAXParser in there. Also looks like all the java
> > objects for the xsd files are generated, is there any other xsd for
> > which we still need java objects. Wouldnt simply deleting these files
> > fix the issue? Is there a place where we are dynamically generating
> > this tree of java objects and using them?
>
> We can definitely delete the xsds and let that be that. I'm not sure
> running offline works as it seems some bit of parsing code is still
> trying to get the schemas from the internet. I haven't tried yet but
> the way to test would be to unplug your network cable then boot the
> server with an app in it.
>
> -David
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
It looks like Craig Russell is getting the license for schema's
cleared up on the apache legal mailing list. FWIU, the schemas are
now available under CDDL so we can distribute them with our software.
Craig, does the license change apply to the old DTDs like EJB 1.1 and
2.0 and xsds like EJB 2.1?
-dain
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:57 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
>
>>> Still have to clear up the sun xsd issue as mentioned earlier.
>> I deleted the xsd files from openejb-jee scheme directory and
>> rebuilt,
>> it worked fine. I also looked into the JaxbJavaee and we are using a
>> non-validating SAXParser in there. Also looks like all the java
>> objects for the xsd files are generated, is there any other xsd for
>> which we still need java objects. Wouldnt simply deleting these files
>> fix the issue? Is there a place where we are dynamically generating
>> this tree of java objects and using them?
>
> We can definitely delete the xsds and let that be that. I'm not
> sure running offline works as it seems some bit of parsing code is
> still trying to get the schemas from the internet. I haven't tried
> yet but the way to test would be to unplug your network cable then
> boot the server with an app in it.
>
> -David
>
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
>> Still have to clear up the sun xsd issue as mentioned earlier.
> I deleted the xsd files from openejb-jee scheme directory and rebuilt,
> it worked fine. I also looked into the JaxbJavaee and we are using a
> non-validating SAXParser in there. Also looks like all the java
> objects for the xsd files are generated, is there any other xsd for
> which we still need java objects. Wouldnt simply deleting these files
> fix the issue? Is there a place where we are dynamically generating
> this tree of java objects and using them?
We can definitely delete the xsds and let that be that. I'm not sure
running offline works as it seems some bit of parsing code is still
trying to get the schemas from the internet. I haven't tried yet but
the way to test would be to unplug your network cable then boot the
server with an app in it.
-David
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
> Still have to clear up the sun xsd issue as mentioned earlier.
I deleted the xsd files from openejb-jee scheme directory and rebuilt,
it worked fine. I also looked into the JaxbJavaee and we are using a
non-validating SAXParser in there. Also looks like all the java
objects for the xsd files are generated, is there any other xsd for
which we still need java objects. Wouldnt simply deleting these files
fix the issue? Is there a place where we are dynamically generating
this tree of java objects and using them?
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 7/2/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Got that issue resolved.
>
> Are we ready to release it now? I would go for releasing at the same
> time as G 2.0 takes off. It's not that long, is it?
Still have to clear up the sun xsd issue as mentioned earlier. But
we should definitely be hammering on the server as if it were ready
to go and flushing out issues.
Jacek, you want to try running the itests on the standalone server?
Anyone tried the tomcat integration lately?
-David
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/2/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Got that issue resolved.
Are we ready to release it now? I would go for releasing at the same
time as G 2.0 takes off. It's not that long, is it?
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:25 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
>>> issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
>>>
>>> What would be your preference?
>>>
>>> - 1 week
>>> - 2 weeks
>>> - 3 weeks
>>> - 1 month
>>>
>>> My preference would be (in this order):
>>> - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Could you point out the corners we should cut before release? I'm
>> leaning towards releasing what's available now (as Geronimo
>> certification is enough to ensure OpenEJB state as far as ejb3's
>> concerned), but your question seems to imply otherwise.
>
> Server doesn't boot :( Run assemble and try and boot openejb-
> standalone via the shell script.
Got that issue resolved.
-David
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 6/26/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
>> issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
>>
>> What would be your preference?
>>
>> - 1 week
>> - 2 weeks
>> - 3 weeks
>> - 1 month
>>
>> My preference would be (in this order):
>> - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
>
> +1
>
> Could you point out the corners we should cut before release? I'm
> leaning towards releasing what's available now (as Geronimo
> certification is enough to ensure OpenEJB state as far as ejb3's
> concerned), but your question seems to imply otherwise.
Server doesn't boot :( Run assemble and try and boot openejb-
standalone via the shell script.
-David
Re: 3x releases (timing input)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 6/26/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve
> issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving.
>
> What would be your preference?
>
> - 1 week
> - 2 weeks
> - 3 weeks
> - 1 month
>
> My preference would be (in this order):
> - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing)
+1
Could you point out the corners we should cut before release? I'm
leaning towards releasing what's available now (as Geronimo
certification is enough to ensure OpenEJB state as far as ejb3's
concerned), but your question seems to imply otherwise.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl