Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=169799&projectId=114
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 20 Mar 2009 19:32:21 -0700
Finished at: Fri 20 Mar 2009 19:32:58 -0700
Total time: 36s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Numbe
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-compress-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
Th
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=169651&projectId=114
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Fri 20 Mar 2009 16:34:16 -0700
Finished at: Fri 20 Mar 2009 16:34:38 -0700
Total time: 21s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build Numbe
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> cli2 tonight.
JIRA admin work happened instead tonight. Reduced the Apache JIRA
count by 1. cli2 somenight.
Hen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.o
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> Really though does this stuff work because I tried changing the
> guarded statement you put in ExceptionUtils and findbugs didn't
> complain at all - so seems like the automated checking is broken in at
> least one place.
Does the check ha
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>>
>> wrote:
>> > sebb wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> How about we fix the felix plugin?
>>
>> We?
>
> We as in the ASF. If we've got a beef with it, we should report it to
> them. Perhaps it has already been reported?
FYI:
http://issues.apac
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM, sebb wrote:
>> How about we fix the felix plugin?
>
> We?
We as in the ASF. If we've got a beef with it, we should report it to
them. Perhaps it has already been reported?
>
>> Or can't we tell it to ignore that stuff somehow via configuration?
>
> So long as
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM, sebb wrote:
> I thought I understood optional, obviously I didn't.
>
> How does one express a dependency that really is optional at compile time?
This particular dependency isn't optional at compile time (not for
lang which would be using it in its source). It w
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, sebb wrote:
> >
> > Take 2:
> >
> > Just found a problem when using compile+optional in HC:
> >
> > The generated bundle:
> > org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore_4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > contains a valid DEPENDENCIES file.
>
On 20/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> > On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > sebb wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> >
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> Take 2:
>
> Just found a problem when using compile+optional in HC:
>
> The generated bundle:
> org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore_4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
> contains a valid DEPENDENCIES file.
> The MANIFEST looks OK too, no mention of jcip
>
> However, th
On 20/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> >
> > wrote:
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is s
On 20/03/2009, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:47 AM
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
> >
>
> > On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 20,
Thanks for your very nice answer. That makes the difference clear.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Min Cha wrote:
> Hi. ted.
> Thanks for your question.
>
> ...
> First, Robust-Task is based on DSL(Domain Specific Langueage). It makes
> code
> more READABLE. You can compare with the code styl
> -Original Message-
> From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:47 AM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [LANG] 3.0 JCIP Annotations
>
> On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb wrote:
> > > It's only optional a
On 20/03/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Colebourne
>
> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/03/2009, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So, overall, I'm dubious as to whether the value is sufficient to
> >>> compilcate the compliation and to f
Hi. ted.
Thanks for your question.
In general, MQ is using to send messages among distribued servers in
enterprise environment.
I think that workflow you mentioned is workflow on the viewpoint of
integration.
On the other hands, Robust-Task handles general worlflow on one process or
one marchine.
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb wrote:
> > It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.
> >
>
>
> Right. That's what optional means.
I thought I understood optional, obviously I didn't.
How does one express a dependency that r
James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb wrote:
>> It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.
>>
>
> Right. That's what optional means. Putting it as optional in Maven
> will change the dependencies report:
>
> http://commons.apache.org/proxy/depend
How is this different from things like OpenMQ (from Sun) or ActiveMQ
(apache)?
These do workflow pretty well.d
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Min Cha wrote:
> Hi, Niclas.
> Thanks for your opinion.
>
> I wonder whether I am understanding a message from you.
> Do you think this project should
I think this is a neat thing that Commons might pick up on, as I see a
problem of it to be large enough for its own community.
Cheers
Niclas
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Min Cha wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I am developing a framework called as Robust-Task.
> Robust-Task is a framework which helps
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM, sebb wrote:
> It's only optional at run-time; it's not optional at compile-time.
>
Right. That's what optional means. Putting it as optional in Maven
will change the dependencies report:
http://commons.apache.org/proxy/dependencies.html
None of the dependenci
Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for
change notification.
The following page has been changed by StefanBodewig:
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CompressRoadmap
The comment on the change is:
track some resolved issues
-
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb wrote:
> > See post from Niall - it causes problems with OSGI bundles.
> >
> > If anything, I see that as an abuse of optional, because it's not optional.
>
>
> But, it *is* optional, because the annotations are not re
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, sebb wrote:
> See post from Niall - it causes problems with OSGI bundles.
>
> If anything, I see that as an abuse of optional, because it's not optional.
But, it *is* optional, because the annotations are not required at
runtime. Putting it in "provided" scope m
On 20/03/2009, James Carman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, sebb wrote:
> > My bad, sorry.
> >
> > The scope "provided" is what is required.
> >
> > I misunderstood the documentation to mean that the user had to provide
> > the jar at compile-time, however it only requires the us
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:31 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 20/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> >> I'm planning to rework the CLI side of things so that CLI-1.x becomes
>> >> trunk and CLI2 moves off to the branc
On 2009-03-20, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> as far as I know you have to apply a DOAP file.
I'd like to defer that to the point when we have the site in place as
well since we'd need to change URLs inside the DOAP file after that
anyway.
Stefan
-
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, sebb wrote:
> My bad, sorry.
>
> The scope "provided" is what is required.
>
> I misunderstood the documentation to mean that the user had to provide
> the jar at compile-time, however it only requires the user to provide
> the jar at run-time.
>
> "provided" does
On 20/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 20/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >> I'm planning to rework the CLI side of things so that CLI-1.x becomes
> >> trunk and CLI2 moves off to the branch. Currently it's the other way
> >> around but al
On 20/03/2009, Eric Bowman wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
> > > provided will not create a runtime dependency. This
> > > should equal a compile-only scope.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The problem with t
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:01 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 20/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> I'm planning to rework the CLI side of things so that CLI-1.x becomes
>> trunk and CLI2 moves off to the branch. Currently it's the other way
>> around but all activity is around the CLI-1 side of things.
>>
>
On 20/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I'm planning to rework the CLI side of things so that CLI-1.x becomes
> trunk and CLI2 moves off to the branch. Currently it's the other way
> around but all activity is around the CLI-1 side of things.
>
> I don't see CLI2 ever hitting a release point, so
sebb wrote:
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote:
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
provided will not create a runtime dependency. This
should equal a compile-only scope.
The problem with that is that the developer has to provide the
annotation jar in order to run
On 20/03/2009, Paul Benedict wrote:
> The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
> provided will not create a runtime dependency. This
> should equal a compile-only scope.
The problem with that is that the developer has to provide the
annotation jar in order to run the compile. This
Hi, Niclas.
Thanks for your opinion.
I wonder whether I am understanding a message from you.
Do you think this project should or can be a component in Commons?
If so, I would like to know how to be a component in Commons.
IMHO, Robust-Task has a possibility to be a good contributor to Java and
A
The Maven folks verified that putting a dependency in
provided will not create a runtime dependency. This
should equal a compile-only scope.
PS: Java 7 will not be defining any source-level annotations for bug
tracking. That will be up to individual tools.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Henri
A long road, but I am so glad compress finally made it :-)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> *cheer*
>
> My +0 not withstanding, this is great :)
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm happy to announce that compress has been promo
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-configuration has an issue affecting its community integration.
Th
40 matches
Mail list logo
