You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2021/02/24 08:33:48 UTC
Pending patches
Hi all,
AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
- [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792: update some
defaults and config capacity
- [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
- [transaction-manager] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805:
enable to change the time evaluator impl
If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free to apply the
patch or I can do it after).
note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in particular
txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which can need to remove the
private constructor of the default impl to enable to configure the impl
completely.
Thanks,
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Thanks!
I will take a look.
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 23/07/2021 à 08:53, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> Done.
>
> - https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail/pull/2
> - https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail/pull/3
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 09:59 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
>> Ok. Will do!
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think it's better if you can push a PR via github.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> François
>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>
>>> Le 21/07/2021 à 11:01, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>> Hi François,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the update.
>>>>
>>>> Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests
>>>> or
>>>> is
>>>> the plan to apply them directly?
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
>>>>>
>>>>> We can now merge the pending PRs.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> François
>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>>>>> Thx for the ticket id !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois
>>>>>> Papon:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Hi François,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket
>>>>>>>> id
>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>> sry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois
>>>>>>>> Papon:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git
>>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> hard-
>>>>>>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending
>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the
>>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> mail-
>>>>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>>> patches?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain"
>>>>>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> method. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getInstance();.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pluggability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SPI
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leak
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocker
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> side).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singleton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mgr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6792
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Done.
- https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail/pull/2
- https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail/pull/3
Gruss
Richard
Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 09:59 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard:
> Ok. Will do!
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it's better if you can push a PR via github.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > François
> > fpapon@apache.org
> >
> > Le 21/07/2021 à 11:01, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > Hi François,
> > >
> > > thanks for the update.
> > >
> > > Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests
> > > or
> > > is
> > > the plan to apply them directly?
> > >
> > > Gruss
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
> > > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
> > > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
> > > >
> > > > We can now merge the pending PRs.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > François
> > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > > > > Thx for the ticket id !
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois
> > > > > Papon:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > François
> > > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > > > > > > Hi François,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket
> > > > > > > id
> > > > > > > anymore,
> > > > > > > sry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois
> > > > > > > Papon:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git
> > > > > > > > ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > François
> > > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might
> > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > affect
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > hard-
> > > > > > > > > coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending
> > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the
> > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > François
> > > > > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > Just to follow up on this thread:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we have any plans for moving forward with the
> > > > > > > > > > > mail-
> > > > > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > > > patches?
> > > > > > > > > > > The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain"
> > > > > > > > > > > ;)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well it can use a singleton but from a factory
> > > > > > > > > > > > method. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > solution is to add a public static X
> > > > > > > > > > > > getInstance();.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But as mentionned it means, to keep the
> > > > > > > > > > > > pluggability
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > > > > with such a spi, you will enforce all other
> > > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > adding is
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > but dropping system props is almost
> > > > > > > > > > > > impossible).
> > > > > > > > > > > > A noarg public constructor is trivial and more
> > > > > > > > > > > > natural
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > makes it
> > > > > > > > > > > > equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the
> > > > > > > > > > > > impls
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > SPI
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > need to use another one").
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On a more personal note I think this pattern is
> > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > has more pitfalls since you enforce a static
> > > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > class is loaded whereas it is not needed
> > > > > > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > lifecycle
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > your main - it is not much but still, I see it
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > leak
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > design (indeed this one is not important and
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > blocker
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > implies to move to the noarg public constructor
> > > > > > > > > > > > on my
> > > > > > > > > > > > side).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be
> > > > > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > opinion to move forward :).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, it is about the configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tomee's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > singleton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instance. Hence, the consuming project would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interface to make it possible. But I am not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > side.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Guillaume:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can drop the private constructor if you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > want.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used by the code if no value is provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeProvider
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bucau <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noarg
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constructor (or just drop the private
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mgr
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Book
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to raise attention on this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6792
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +0100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > close:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (setText)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone else can have a review it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <resource>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to remove the private
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constructor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Github |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Book
--
Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
Max-Planck-Str. 39
D-74081 Heilbronn
phone: +49 7131 504 6791 (zur Zeit nicht via Telefon erreichbar)
mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
web: https://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Thanks!
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 21/07/2021 à 11:59, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> Ok. Will do!
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it's better if you can push a PR via github.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>>
>> Le 21/07/2021 à 11:01, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>> Hi François,
>>>
>>> thanks for the update.
>>>
>>> Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests or
>>> is
>>> the plan to apply them directly?
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
>>>>
>>>> We can now merge the pending PRs.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> François
>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>
>>>> Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>>>> Thx for the ticket id !
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois
>>>>> Papon:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> François
>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi François,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id
>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>> sry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois
>>>>>>> Papon:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git
>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also
>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> hard-
>>>>>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
>>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the
>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the
>>>>>>>>>>> mail-
>>>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>> patches?
>>>>>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain"
>>>>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory
>>>>>>>>>>>> method. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X
>>>>>>>>>>>> getInstance();.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the
>>>>>>>>>>>> pluggability
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily
>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>> adding is
>>>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>>>>>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more
>>>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the
>>>>>>>>>>>> impls
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> SPI
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed
>>>>>>>>>>>> depending
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> leak
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> blocker
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>> on my
>>>>>>>>>>>> side).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> singleton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mgr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6792
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Ok. Will do!
Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 11:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's better if you can push a PR via github.
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 21/07/2021 à 11:01, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > Hi François,
> >
> > thanks for the update.
> >
> > Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests or
> > is
> > the plan to apply them directly?
> >
> > Gruss
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
> > > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
> > >
> > > We can now merge the pending PRs.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > > fpapon@apache.org
> > >
> > > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > > > Thx for the ticket id !
> > > >
> > > > Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois
> > > > Papon:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > François
> > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > > > > > Hi François,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id
> > > > > > anymore,
> > > > > > sry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois
> > > > > > Papon:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git
> > > > > > > ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > François
> > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also
> > > > > > > > affect
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > hard-
> > > > > > > > coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
> > > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the
> > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > François
> > > > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > Just to follow up on this thread:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do we have any plans for moving forward with the
> > > > > > > > > > mail-
> > > > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > > patches?
> > > > > > > > > > The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain"
> > > > > > > > > > ;)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > > Well it can use a singleton but from a factory
> > > > > > > > > > > method. So
> > > > > > > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > solution is to add a public static X
> > > > > > > > > > > getInstance();.
> > > > > > > > > > > But as mentionned it means, to keep the
> > > > > > > > > > > pluggability
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > > > with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily
> > > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > adding is
> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> > > > > > > > > > > A noarg public constructor is trivial and more
> > > > > > > > > > > natural
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > > IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > makes it
> > > > > > > > > > > equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the
> > > > > > > > > > > impls
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > SPI
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need to use another one").
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On a more personal note I think this pattern is
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > has more pitfalls since you enforce a static
> > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > class is loaded whereas it is not needed
> > > > > > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > lifecycle
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > your main - it is not much but still, I see it as
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > leak
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > design (indeed this one is not important and not
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > blocker
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > implies to move to the noarg public constructor
> > > > > > > > > > > on my
> > > > > > > > > > > side).
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be
> > > > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > opinion to move forward :).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think, it is about the configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > tomee's
> > > > > > > > > > > > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > use of
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > singleton
> > > > > > > > > > > > instance. Hence, the consuming project would
> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > interface to make it possible. But I am not
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > deep
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > side.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > > > > > Guillaume:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can drop the private constructor if you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used by the code if no value is provided for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > timeProvider
> > > > > > > > > > > > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bucau <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noarg
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > constructor (or just drop the private one)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mgr
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Book
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to raise attention on this again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6792
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > close:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > > > > > > > > > > > (setText)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone else can have a review it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <resource>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to remove the private constructor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Github |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Book
--
Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
Max-Planck-Str. 39
D-74081 Heilbronn
phone: +49 7131 504 6791 (zur Zeit nicht via Telefon erreichbar)
mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
web: https://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Hi,
I think it's better if you can push a PR via github.
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 21/07/2021 à 11:01, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> Hi François,
>
> thanks for the update.
>
> Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests or is
> the plan to apply them directly?
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
>>
>> We can now merge the pending PRs.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>>
>> Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>> Thx for the ticket id !
>>>
>>> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> François
>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>
>>>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>>>> Hi François,
>>>>>
>>>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id
>>>>> anymore,
>>>>> sry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois
>>>>> Papon:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> François
>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also
>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> hard-
>>>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>> patches?
>>>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory
>>>>>>>>>> method. So
>>>>>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>>>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
>>>>>>>>>> adding is
>>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>>>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more
>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> SPI
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an
>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a
>>>>>>>>>> leak
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a
>>>>>>>>>> blocker
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
>>>>>>>>>> side).
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> tomee's
>>>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the
>>>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> singleton
>>>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that
>>>>>>>>>>> deep
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my
>>>>>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau <
>>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>>>>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi François,
thanks for the update.
Shall I migrate my SVN patch files towards GitHub Pull Requests or is
the plan to apply them directly?
Gruss
Richard
Am Mittwoch, den 21.07.2021, 10:58 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> Hi all,
>
> This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
>
> We can now merge the pending PRs.
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > Thx for the ticket id !
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > > fpapon@apache.org
> > >
> > > Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > > > Hi François,
> > > >
> > > > any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id
> > > > anymore,
> > > > sry.
> > > >
> > > > Gruss
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois
> > > > Papon:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > François
> > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also
> > > > > > affect
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > hard-
> > > > > > coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
> > > > > > fpapon@apache.org:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > François
> > > > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > > > Just to follow up on this thread:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
> > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > patches?
> > > > > > > > The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
> > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > Well it can use a singleton but from a factory
> > > > > > > > > method. So
> > > > > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > > > > solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> > > > > > > > > But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
> > > > > > > > > adding is
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> > > > > > > > > A noarg public constructor is trivial and more
> > > > > > > > > natural
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
> > > > > > > > > makes it
> > > > > > > > > equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > SPI
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an
> > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > need to use another one").
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On a more personal note I think this pattern is no
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > lifecycle
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a
> > > > > > > > > leak
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > design (indeed this one is not important and not a
> > > > > > > > > blocker
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
> > > > > > > > > side).
> > > > > > > > > Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > opinion to move forward :).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think, it is about the configuration flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > tomee's
> > > > > > > > > > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the
> > > > > > > > > > use of
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > singleton
> > > > > > > > > > instance. Hence, the consuming project would need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > interface to make it possible. But I am not that
> > > > > > > > > > deep
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my
> > > > > > > > > > side.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > > > Guillaume:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
> > > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > used by the code if no value is provided for the
> > > > > > > > > > > timeProvider
> > > > > > > > > > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > Bucau <
> > > > > > > > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > noarg
> > > > > > > > > > > > constructor (or just drop the private one)
> > > > > > > > > > > > since it
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > Book
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > close:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > > > > > > > > > (setText)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone else can have a review it would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (feel
> > > > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <resource>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to remove the private constructor of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Book
--
Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
Max-Planck-Str. 39
D-74081 Heilbronn
phone: +49 7131 504 6791 (zur Zeit nicht via Telefon erreichbar)
mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
web: https://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Hi,
I merged some PRs to update the scm section and infra confirmed that the
svn repos has been passed to read only mode when they started the
migration process.
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 21/07/2021 à 11:04, Francois Papon a écrit :
>
> Good point!
>
> I will update the scm section of the pom and ask to pass the the old
> svn repo in read only.
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
> Le 21/07/2021 à 11:02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
>> great news!
>> did the <scm> section and release plugin was updated to enable releases?
>> Also should we pass svn in read only if possible? recall xbean
>> already got some weird state where we pushed to both locations
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 11:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
>> <ma...@nanthrax.net>> a écrit :
>>
>> Thanks for the update and taking action !
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 7/21/21 10:58 AM, Francois Papon wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
>> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean>
>> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
>> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail>
>> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
>> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager>
>> >
>> > We can now merge the pending PRs.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > François
>> > fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >
>> > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>> >> Thx for the ticket id !
>> >>
>> >> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>>
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> François
>> >>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>>
>> >>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>> >>>> Hi François,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id
>> anymore,
>> >>>> sry.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Gruss
>> >>>> Richard
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> François
>> >>>>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> hard-
>> >>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would
>> >>>>>> be
>> >>>>>> very
>> >>>>>> appreciated.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Gruss
>> >>>>>> Richard
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343>
>> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
>> >>>>>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> regards,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> François
>> >>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>> >>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
>> >>>>>>>> related
>> >>>>>>>> patches?
>> >>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Gruss
>> >>>>>>>> Richard
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
>> >>>>>>>> Manni-
>> >>>>>>>> Bucau:
>> >>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
>> >>>>>>>>> immediate
>> >>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>> >>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
>> >>>>>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>>> target
>> >>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use
>> >>>>>>>>> such
>> >>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
>> >>>>>>>>> adding is
>> >>>>>>>>> easy
>> >>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>> >>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural
>> >>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>> resources
>> >>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
>> >>>>>>>>> makes it
>> >>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> SPI
>> >>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl
>> >>>>>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>>> you
>> >>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
>> >>>>>>>>> relevant
>> >>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as
>> >>>>>>>>> soon
>> >>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
>> >>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>> >>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak
>> >>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>> terms
>> >>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a
>> >>>>>>>>> blocker
>> >>>>>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>>> all
>> >>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
>> >>>>>>>>> side).
>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to
>> >>>>>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>>> another
>> >>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>> >>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
>> <ma...@hs-heilbronn.de>> a écrit :
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
>> >>>>>>>>>> tomee's
>> >>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of
>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> singleton
>> >>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
>> >>>>>>>>>> implement
>> >>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep
>> >>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>> Romain
>> >>>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>> >>>>>>>>>> Richard
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
>> >>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
>> >>>>>>>>>>> instance
>> >>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>> already
>> >>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> >>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> public
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> will
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> |
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
>> <ma...@hs-heilbronn.de>> a écrit :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>> >>>>>>>>>> nice
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
>> >>>>>>>>>> server
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>> >>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> close:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800>
>> >>>>>>>>>> (setText)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>> >>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>> >>>>>>>>>> free
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>> >>>>>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>> >>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net>
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com>
>>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Good point!
I will update the scm section of the pom and ask to pass the the old svn
repo in read only.
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 21/07/2021 à 11:02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
> great news!
> did the <scm> section and release plugin was updated to enable releases?
> Also should we pass svn in read only if possible? recall xbean already
> got some weird state where we pushed to both locations
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 11:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> <ma...@nanthrax.net>> a écrit :
>
> Thanks for the update and taking action !
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 7/21/21 10:58 AM, Francois Papon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean>
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail>
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
> <https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager>
> >
> > We can now merge the pending PRs.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > François
> > fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >
> > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> >> Thx for the ticket id !
> >>
> >> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>>
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> François
> >>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >>>
> >>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> >>>> Hi François,
> >>>>
> >>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id
> anymore,
> >>>> sry.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gruss
> >>>> Richard
> >>>>
> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> François
> >>>>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> hard-
> >>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>> appreciated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343>
> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
> >>>>>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> François
> >>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> >>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
> >>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>> patches?
> >>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
> >>>>>>>> Manni-
> >>>>>>>> Bucau:
> >>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
> >>>>>>>>> immediate
> >>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> >>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
> >>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> target
> >>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use
> >>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
> >>>>>>>>> adding is
> >>>>>>>>> easy
> >>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> >>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural
> >>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> resources
> >>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
> >>>>>>>>> makes it
> >>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> SPI
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
> >>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as
> >>>>>>>>> soon
> >>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
> >>>>>>>>> lifecycle
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> terms
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a
> >>>>>>>>> blocker
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
> >>>>>>>>> side).
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> >>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> <ma...@hs-heilbronn.de>> a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
> >>>>>>>>>> tomee's
> >>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> singleton
> >>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
> >>>>>>>>>> implement
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>> Romain
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
> >>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
> >>>>>>>>>>> instance
> >>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> already
> >>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
> >>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Florent
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
> >>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> enable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
> >>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> <ma...@hs-heilbronn.de>> a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>> nice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> given
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
> >>>>>>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
> >>>>>>>>>> Manni-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> close:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> update
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800>
> >>>>>>>>>> (setText)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
> >>>>>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
> >>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net>
> Talend - http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com>
>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
great news!
did the <scm> section and release plugin was updated to enable releases?
Also should we pass svn in read only if possible? recall xbean already got
some weird state where we pushed to both locations
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mer. 21 juil. 2021 à 11:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> a
écrit :
> Thanks for the update and taking action !
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 7/21/21 10:58 AM, Francois Papon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
> > https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
> >
> > We can now merge the pending PRs.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > François
> > fpapon@apache.org
> >
> > Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> >> Thx for the ticket id !
> >>
> >> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> François
> >>> fpapon@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> >>>> Hi François,
> >>>>
> >>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id anymore,
> >>>> sry.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gruss
> >>>> Richard
> >>>>
> >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> François
> >>>>> fpapon@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> hard-
> >>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>> appreciated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
> >>>>>> fpapon@apache.org:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> François
> >>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> >>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
> >>>>>>>> related
> >>>>>>>> patches?
> >>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
> >>>>>>>> Manni-
> >>>>>>>> Bucau:
> >>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
> >>>>>>>>> immediate
> >>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> >>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
> >>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> target
> >>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use
> >>>>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
> >>>>>>>>> adding is
> >>>>>>>>> easy
> >>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> >>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural
> >>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> resources
> >>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
> >>>>>>>>> makes it
> >>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> SPI
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
> >>>>>>>>> relevant
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as
> >>>>>>>>> soon
> >>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
> >>>>>>>>> lifecycle
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> terms
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a
> >>>>>>>>> blocker
> >>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
> >>>>>>>>> side).
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> >>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
> >>>>>>>>>> tomee's
> >>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> singleton
> >>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
> >>>>>>>>>> implement
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>> Romain
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
> >>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
> >>>>>>>>>>> instance
> >>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> already
> >>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
> >>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
> >>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Florent
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
> >>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> enable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
> >>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>> nice
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> given
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
> >>>>>>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
> >>>>>>>>>> Manni-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> close:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> update
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> >>>>>>>>>> (setText)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
> >>>>>>>>>> free
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
> >>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Thanks for the update and taking action !
Regards
JB
On 7/21/21 10:58 AM, Francois Papon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
>
> We can now merge the pending PRs.
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>> Thx for the ticket id !
>>
>> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> François
>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>
>>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>>> Hi François,
>>>>
>>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id anymore,
>>>> sry.
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> François
>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> hard-
>>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> François
>>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>> patches?
>>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
>>>>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use
>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
>>>>>>>>> adding is
>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> SPI
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as
>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
>>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a
>>>>>>>>> blocker
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
>>>>>>>>> side).
>>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
>>>>>>>>>> tomee's
>>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> singleton
>>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
>>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
>>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>>>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Hi all,
This 3 repo has moved successfuly to gitbox:
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-xbean
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-javamail
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager
We can now merge the pending PRs.
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 08/06/2021 à 14:15, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> Thx for the ticket id !
>
> Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>>
>> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
>>> Hi François,
>>>
>>> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id anymore,
>>> sry.
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> François
>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>
>>>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect
>>>>> the
>>>>> hard-
>>>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would
>>>>> be
>>>>> very
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
>>>>> fpapon@apache.org:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> François
>>>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>> patches?
>>>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
>>>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>>>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
>>>>>>>> adding is
>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>>>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> resources
>>>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> SPI
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as
>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
>>>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a
>>>>>>>> blocker
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
>>>>>>>> side).
>>>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
>>>>>>>>> tomee's
>>>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> singleton
>>>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
>>>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
>>>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>>>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>> noarg
>>>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply/issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <resource>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org>.
Thx for the ticket id !
Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2021, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> Hi,
>
> Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> > Hi François,
> >
> > any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id anymore,
> > sry.
> >
> > Gruss
> > Richard
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > > fpapon@apache.org
> > >
> > > Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect
> > > > the
> > > > hard-
> > > > coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would
> > > > be
> > > > very
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> > > >
> > > > Gruss
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> > > >
> > > > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb
> > > > fpapon@apache.org:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > François
> > > > > fpapon@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > > > Just to follow up on this thread:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-
> > > > > > related
> > > > > > patches?
> > > > > > The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain
> > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
> > > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > > solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> > > > > > > But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since
> > > > > > > adding is
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> > > > > > > A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to
> > > > > > > makes it
> > > > > > > equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > SPI
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > need to use another one").
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
> > > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as
> > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
> > > > > > > lifecycle
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > design (indeed this one is not important and not a
> > > > > > > blocker
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my
> > > > > > > side).
> > > > > > > Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > opinion to move forward :).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
> > > > > > > > tomee's
> > > > > > > > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > singleton
> > > > > > > > instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
> > > > > > > > Guillaume:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> > > > > > > > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default
> > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > used by the code if no value is provided for the
> > > > > > > > > timeProvider
> > > > > > > > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a
> > > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > noarg
> > > > > > > > > > constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > > > Book
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > > > as we
> > > > > > > > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a
> > > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to
> > > > > > > > > > > > apply/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > close:
> > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> > > > > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > > > > > > > (setText)
> > > > > > > > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> > > > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If someone else can have a review it would be
> > > > > > > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > (feel
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for some
> > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee
> > > > > > > > > > > > <resource>
> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > need to remove the private constructor of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github |
> > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > > > Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Hi,
Migration is still pending, waiting for infra:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21908>
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 08/06/2021 à 13:56, Richard Zowalla a écrit :
> Hi François,
>
> any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id anymore,
> sry.
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>>
>> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect the
>>> hard-
>>> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would be
>>> very
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>>>
>>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb fpapon@apache.org:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> François
>>>> fpapon@apache.org
>>>>
>>>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-related
>>>>> patches?
>>>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-
>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
>>>>>> immediate
>>>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>>>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> target
>>>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is
>>>>>> easy
>>>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>>>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with
>>>>>> resources
>>>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it
>>>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the
>>>>>> SPI
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
>>>>>> lifecycle
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak in
>>>>>> terms
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a blocker
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my side).
>>>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
>>>>>>> tomee's
>>>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a
>>>>>>> singleton
>>>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as
>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
>>>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>>>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the
>>>>>>>> timeProvider
>>>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public
>>>>>>>>> noarg
>>>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn |
>>>>>>>>> Book
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given
>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be great
>>>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some
>>>>>>>>>>> feedback
>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource>
>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the
>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Richard Zowalla <rz...@apache.org>.
Hi François,
any updates from INFRA on this? Couldnt find the ticket id anymore,
sry.
Gruss
Richard
Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 09:38 +0200 schrieb Francois Papon:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect the
> > hard-
> > coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would be
> > very
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
> >
> > Gruss
> > Richard
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
> >
> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb fpapon@apache.org:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > > fpapon@apache.org
> > >
> > > Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > > > Just to follow up on this thread:
> > > >
> > > > Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-related
> > > > patches?
> > > > The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
> > > >
> > > > Gruss
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-
> > > > Bucau:
> > > > > Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
> > > > > immediate
> > > > > solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> > > > > But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we
> > > > > should
> > > > > target
> > > > > with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such
> > > > > a
> > > > > pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is
> > > > > easy
> > > > > but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> > > > > A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with
> > > > > resources
> > > > > IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it
> > > > > equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the
> > > > > SPI
> > > > > in
> > > > > tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but
> > > > > you
> > > > > need to use another one").
> > > > >
> > > > > On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more
> > > > > relevant
> > > > > and
> > > > > has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon
> > > > > as
> > > > > the
> > > > > class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the
> > > > > lifecycle
> > > > > of
> > > > > your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak in
> > > > > terms
> > > > > of
> > > > > design (indeed this one is not important and not a blocker
> > > > > but
> > > > > all
> > > > > implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my side).
> > > > > Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have
> > > > > another
> > > > > opinion to move forward :).
> > > > >
> > > > > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in
> > > > > > tomee's
> > > > > > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a
> > > > > > singleton
> > > > > > instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as
> > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
> > > > > > Guillaume:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> > > > > > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > used by the code if no value is provided for the
> > > > > > > timeProvider
> > > > > > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Florent
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public
> > > > > > > > noarg
> > > > > > > > constructor (or just drop the private one) since it
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn |
> > > > > > > > Book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > nice
> > > > > > > > > as we
> > > > > > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given
> > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb
> > > > > > > > > Romain
> > > > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > close:
> > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> > > > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > > > > > (setText)
> > > > > > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805
> > > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If someone else can have a review it would be great
> > > > > > > > > > (feel
> > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for some
> > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource>
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > need to remove the private constructor of the
> > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > impl
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
> > > > > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > > > > Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Francois Papon <fr...@openobject.fr>.
Hi,
Yes, we plan to do this just after the migration to git ;)
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 19/05/2021 à 09:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect the hard-
> coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would be very
> appreciated.
>
> Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
>
> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb fpapon@apache.org:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> François
>> fpapon@apache.org
>>
>> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
>>> Just to follow up on this thread:
>>>
>>> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-related
>>> patches?
>>> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-
>>> Bucau:
>>>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
>>>> immediate
>>>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>>>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we should
>>>> target
>>>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such a
>>>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is
>>>> easy
>>>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>>>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with
>>>> resources
>>>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it
>>>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the SPI
>>>> in
>>>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but you
>>>> need to use another one").
>>>>
>>>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more relevant
>>>> and
>>>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon as
>>>> the
>>>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the lifecycle
>>>> of
>>>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak in terms
>>>> of
>>>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a blocker but
>>>> all
>>>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my side).
>>>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have
>>>> another
>>>> opinion to move forward :).
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in tomee's
>>>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a
>>>>> singleton
>>>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to implement
>>>>> the
>>>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as Romain
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
>>>>> Guillaume:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>>>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is
>>>>> already
>>>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider
>>>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Florent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg
>>>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it will
>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with this
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>> nice
>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail
>>>>> server
>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain
>>>>> Manni-
>>>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to
>>>>> close:
>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>>>> (setText)
>>>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805:
>>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be great
>>>>>>>>> (feel
>>>>> free
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource>
>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the default
>>>>>>>>> impl
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn |
>>>>>>>>> Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi,
thanks for your response! I think, that [1] might also affect the hard-
coded TLS1.0 in GERONIMO-6792 [2], so the pending patch would be very
appreciated.
Maybe after the migration to git? ;)
Gruss
Richard
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202343
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792
Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 08:20 +0200 schrieb fpapon@apache.org:
> Hi,
>
> I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
>
> regards,
>
> François
> fpapon@apache.org
>
> Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> > Just to follow up on this thread:
> >
> > Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-related
> > patches?
> > The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
> >
> > Gruss
> > Richard
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-
> > Bucau:
> > > Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So
> > > immediate
> > > solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> > > But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we should
> > > target
> > > with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such a
> > > pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is
> > > easy
> > > but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> > > A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with
> > > resources
> > > IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it
> > > equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the SPI
> > > in
> > > tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but you
> > > need to use another one").
> > >
> > > On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more relevant
> > > and
> > > has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon as
> > > the
> > > class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the lifecycle
> > > of
> > > your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak in terms
> > > of
> > > design (indeed this one is not important and not a blocker but
> > > all
> > > implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my side).
> > > Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have
> > > another
> > > opinion to move forward :).
> > >
> > > Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in tomee's
> > > > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a
> > > > singleton
> > > > instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to implement
> > > > the
> > > > interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as Romain
> > > > in
> > > > the
> > > > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
> > > >
> > > > Gruss
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent
> > > > Guillaume:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> > > > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is
> > > > already
> > > > > used by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider
> > > > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > > > >
> > > > > Florent
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg
> > > > > > constructor (or just drop the private one) since it will
> > > > > > enable
> > > > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with this
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be
> > > > > > > very
> > > > nice
> > > > > > > as we
> > > > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail
> > > > server
> > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gruss
> > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain
> > > > Manni-
> > > > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to
> > > > close:
> > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > > > - [mail]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > > > (setText)
> > > > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805:
> > > > > > > > enable
> > > > to
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If someone else can have a review it would be great
> > > > > > > > (feel
> > > > free
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource>
> > > > > > > > usage
> > > > which
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > need to remove the private constructor of the default
> > > > > > > > impl
> > > > to
> > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn |
> > > > > > > > Book
Re: Pending patches
Posted by fp...@apache.org.
Hi,
I think I can take a look to the Jira and merge the PRs.
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 28/04/2021 à 11:09, Zowalla, Richard a écrit :
> Just to follow up on this thread:
>
> Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-related patches?
> The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So immediate
>> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
>> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we should target
>> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such a
>> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is easy
>> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
>> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with resources
>> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it
>> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the SPI in
>> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but you
>> need to use another one").
>>
>> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more relevant and
>> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon as the
>> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the lifecycle of
>> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak in terms of
>> design (indeed this one is not important and not a blocker but all
>> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my side).
>> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have another
>> opinion to move forward :).
>>
>> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in tomee's
>>> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a singleton
>>> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to implement the
>>> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as Romain in
>>> the
>>> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
>>>> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is
>>> already
>>>> used by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider
>>>> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>>>>
>>>> Florent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg
>>>>> constructor (or just drop the private one) since it will enable
>>>>> tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with this new
>>>>> feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>>>>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very
>>> nice
>>>>>> as we
>>>>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail
>>> server
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain
>>> Manni-
>>>>>> Bucau:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to
>>> close:
>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
>>>>>> update
>>>>>>> some defaults and config capacity
>>>>>>> - [mail]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
>>> (setText)
>>>>>>> - [transaction-manager]
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable
>>> to
>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> the time evaluator impl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel
>>> free
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback -
>>> in
>>>>>>> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage
>>> which
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> need to remove the private constructor of the default impl
>>> to
>>>>>> enable
>>>>>>> to configure the impl completely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>>>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Just to follow up on this thread:
Do we have any plans for moving forward with the mail-related patches?
The hard-coded TLS config in mail is a bit "pain" ;)
Gruss
Richard
Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2021, 08:50 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So immediate
> solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
> But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we should target
> with such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such a
> pattern (you cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is easy
> but dropping system props is almost impossible).
> A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with resources
> IMHO - but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it
> equivalent, just requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the SPI in
> tomee codebase which sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but you
> need to use another one").
>
> On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more relevant and
> has more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon as the
> class is loaded whereas it is not needed depending the lifecycle of
> your main - it is not much but still, I see it as a leak in terms of
> design (indeed this one is not important and not a blocker but all
> implies to move to the noarg public constructor on my side).
> Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have another
> opinion to move forward :).
>
> Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in tomee's
> > <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a singleton
> > instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to implement the
> > interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as Romain in
> > the
> > TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
> >
> > Gruss
> > Richard
> >
> > Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> > > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is
> > already
> > > used by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider
> > > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> > >
> > > Florent
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Richard,
> > > >
> > > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg
> > > > constructor (or just drop the private one) since it will enable
> > > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with this new
> > > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very
> > nice
> > > > > as we
> > > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail
> > server
> > > > > instead
> > > > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gruss
> > > > > Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain
> > Manni-
> > > > > Bucau:
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to
> > close:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - [mail]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> > > > > update
> > > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > > - [mail]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > > and
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800
> > (setText)
> > > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable
> > to
> > > > > change
> > > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel
> > free
> > > > > to
> > > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback -
> > in
> > > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage
> > which
> > > > > can
> > > > > > need to remove the private constructor of the default impl
> > to
> > > > > enable
> > > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Well it can use a singleton but from a factory method. So immediate
solution is to add a public static X getInstance();.
But as mentionned it means, to keep the pluggability we should target with
such a spi, you will enforce all other impl to use such a pattern (you
cant' just switch with -D easily since adding is easy but dropping system
props is almost impossible).
A noarg public constructor is trivial and more natural with resources IMHO
- but once again tomee can does all the work to makes it equivalent, just
requires to duplicate/wrap the impls of the SPI in tomee codebase which
sounds weird to me ("we have an impl but you need to use another one").
On a more personal note I think this pattern is no more relevant and has
more pitfalls since you enforce a static instance as soon as the class is
loaded whereas it is not needed depending the lifecycle of your main - it
is not much but still, I see it as a leak in terms of design (indeed this
one is not important and not a blocker but all implies to move to the noarg
public constructor on my side).
Maybe a habit and personal choice so would be great to have another opinion
to move forward :).
Le mar. 23 mars 2021 à 08:38, Zowalla, Richard <
richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in tomee's
> <resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a singleton
> instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to implement the
> interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as Romain in the
> TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
> Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> > I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is already
> > used by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider
> > parameter of TransactionImpl.
> >
> > Florent
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg
> > > constructor (or just drop the private one) since it will enable
> > > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with this new
> > > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> > > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very nice
> > > > as we
> > > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail server
> > > > instead
> > > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > > >
> > > > Gruss
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-
> > > > Bucau:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
> > > > >
> > > > > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> > > > update
> > > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > > and
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
> > > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable to
> > > > change
> > > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > > >
> > > > > If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free
> > > > to
> > > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > > >
> > > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in
> > > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which
> > > > can
> > > > > need to remove the private constructor of the default impl to
> > > > enable
> > > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > > >
> >
> >
> --
> Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
> Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
>
> Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
> Max-Planck-Str. 39
> D-74081 Heilbronn
> phone: +49 7131 504 6791
> mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
> web: https://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi,
I think, it is about the configuration flexibility in tomee's
<resource> definitions, which wouldn't allow the use of a singleton
instance. Hence, the consuming project would need to implement the
interface to make it possible. But I am not that deep as Romain in the
TomEE codebase, so it is still a guess from my side.
Gruss
Richard
Am Montag, den 22.03.2021, 23:14 +0100 schrieb Florent Guillaume:
> Hi,
>
> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is already
> used by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider
> parameter of TransactionImpl.
>
> Florent
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg
> > constructor (or just drop the private one) since it will enable
> > tomee to fully configure dynamically the tx mgr with this new
> > feature but otherwise +1 to apply them all.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> > richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very nice
> > > as we
> > > should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail server
> > > instead
> > > of falling back to some hard-coded default.
> > >
> > > Gruss
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-
> > > Bucau:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
> > > >
> > > > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792:
> > > update
> > > > some defaults and config capacity
> > > > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801
> > > and
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
> > > > - [transaction-manager]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable to
> > > change
> > > > the time evaluator impl
> > > >
> > > > If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free
> > > to
> > > > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> > > >
> > > > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in
> > > > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which
> > > can
> > > > need to remove the private constructor of the default impl to
> > > enable
> > > > to configure the impl completely.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> > >
>
>
--
Richard Zowalla, M.Sc.
Research Associate, PhD Student | Medical Informatics
Hochschule Heilbronn – University of Applied Sciences
Max-Planck-Str. 39
D-74081 Heilbronn
phone: +49 7131 504 6791
mail: richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de
web: https://www.mi.hs-heilbronn.de/
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 23:15, Florent Guillaume <fg...@nuxeo.com> a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I can drop the private constructor if you want.
> I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is already used
> by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider parameter of
> TransactionImpl.
>
Got that from your comment on the ticket but tomee makes bean wiring of the
tomee.xml/resources.xml configurable, this means you can make the impl of
this bean configurable.
TomEE will support a factory method (getInstance like) or constructor args
but then it means other impls will need that as well whereas they would
likely just use a "new" instantiation IMHO.
So to ensure you can switch the impl just with a -Dxxxx=MyImpl or
-Dxxx=o.a.g....SystemCurrentTime (I'm simplifying names and overall system
;)), being able to instantiate an instance of the default makes sense to me.
This does not mean your default wiring is not correct - it is, it is just
not aligned on some configuration mecanism.
Why i asked tomee dev on the ticket is that tomee can wrap
SystemCurrentTime to make it instantiable so wondered if it is what is
expected vs having it instantiable OOTB.
Hope it makes more sense this way.
>
> Florent
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg constructor
>> (or just drop the private one) since it will enable tomee to fully
>> configure dynamically the tx mgr with this new feature but otherwise +1 to
>> apply them all.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
>> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very nice as we
>>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail server instead
>>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
>>> >
>>> > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792: update
>>> > some defaults and config capacity
>>> > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 and
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
>>> > - [transaction-manager]
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable to change
>>> > the time evaluator impl
>>> >
>>> > If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free to
>>> > apply the patch or I can do it after).
>>> >
>>> > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in
>>> > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which can
>>> > need to remove the private constructor of the default impl to enable
>>> > to configure the impl completely.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> [image: Nuxeo Logo] <https://www.nuxeo.com/>
>
> Florent Guillaume Head of R&D [image: LinkedIn]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/fguillaume/> [image: Twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/efge> [image: Github] <https://github.com/efge>
>
> Nuxeo Content Services Platform. Stay ahead.
>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Florent Guillaume <fg...@nuxeo.com>.
Hi,
I can drop the private constructor if you want.
I'm surprised it's needed though, as the default instance is already used
by the code if no value is provided for the timeProvider parameter of
TransactionImpl.
Florent
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:49 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg constructor
> (or just drop the private one) since it will enable tomee to fully
> configure dynamically the tx mgr with this new feature but otherwise +1 to
> apply them all.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
> richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very nice as we
>> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail server instead
>> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>>
>> Gruss
>> Richard
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
>> >
>> > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792: update
>> > some defaults and config capacity
>> > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 and
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
>> > - [transaction-manager]
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable to change
>> > the time evaluator impl
>> >
>> > If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free to
>> > apply the patch or I can do it after).
>> >
>> > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in
>> > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which can
>> > need to remove the private constructor of the default impl to enable
>> > to configure the impl completely.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>
>>
--
[image: Nuxeo Logo] <https://www.nuxeo.com/>
Florent Guillaume Head of R&D [image: LinkedIn]
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/fguillaume/> [image: Twitter]
<https://twitter.com/efge> [image: Github] <https://github.com/efge>
Nuxeo Content Services Platform. Stay ahead.
Re: Pending patches
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Richard,
I still think SystemCurrentTime should have a public noarg constructor (or
just drop the private one) since it will enable tomee to fully configure
dynamically the tx mgr with this new feature but otherwise +1 to apply them
all.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le lun. 22 mars 2021 à 17:03, Zowalla, Richard <
richard.zowalla@hs-heilbronn.de> a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very nice as we
> should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail server instead
> of falling back to some hard-coded default.
>
> Gruss
> Richard
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
> >
> > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792: update
> > some defaults and config capacity
> > - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 and
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
> > - [transaction-manager]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable to change
> > the time evaluator impl
> >
> > If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free to
> > apply the patch or I can do it after).
> >
> > note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in
> > particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which can
> > need to remove the private constructor of the default impl to enable
> > to configure the impl completely.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
Re: Pending patches
Posted by "Zowalla, Richard" <ri...@hs-heilbronn.de>.
Hi all,
wanted to raise attention on this again. 6792 would be very nice as we
should allow TLS/SSL protocol versions for a given mail server instead
of falling back to some hard-coded default.
Gruss
Richard
Am Mittwoch, den 24.02.2021, 09:33 +0100 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> Hi all,
>
> AFAIK we have a few pending patches to apply/issue to close:
>
> - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6792: update
> some defaults and config capacity
> - [mail] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6801 and
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6800 (setText)
> - [transaction-manager]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6805: enable to change
> the time evaluator impl
>
> If someone else can have a review it would be great (feel free to
> apply the patch or I can do it after).
>
> note: some of the patches are waiting for some feedback - in
> particular txmgr one, wonder about tomee <resource> usage which can
> need to remove the private constructor of the default impl to enable
> to configure the impl completely.
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book