Added InstanceService in NodeContextImpl ctor and used it in saving
instance data instead of having a local variable "instanceData".
This bug is not obvious when using in-memory persistence.
Chris
Index: src/test/org/apache/agila/impl/NodeContextImplTestCase.java
Corrected an email typo.
Deleted as it is deprecated.
Chris
Index: project.xml
===
--- project.xml (revision 57139)
+++ project.xml (working copy)
@@ -121,10 +121,9 @@
-[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+[EMAIL PROTECTED
SourceID (http://www.sourceid.com) provides a fairly mature set of
services conforming to the interoperability standards defined by the
Liberty Alliance ( http://www.projectliberty.org/ ). I'm unsure as to
the specifics of their license.
On Nov 9, 2004, at 11:51 PM, hammett wrote:
Hiya, I think
http://www.projectliberty.org/
> -Original Message-
> From: Jose Alfonso Martinez del Paso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 November 2004 6:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Universal Login proyect proposal
> Importance: Low
>
>
> Hello guys, I have an idea of a pro
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 07:51, hammett wrote:
> Hiya,
> I think MS already implemented this idea. Its called Passport.
Which has failed, so I read.
Mvgr,
Martin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comman
Hiya,
I think MS already implemented this idea. Its called Passport.
--
Cheers,
hammett
http://www.digitalcraftsmen.com.br/~hammett
- Original Message -
From: "Jose Alfonso Martinez del Paso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject:
Hello guys, I have an idea of a project, I hope this is the right place to post
it. If not, forgive me, it won't take long.
Having different login accounts for everything (email, blogs, msn,
websites, etc) is a pain in the ass. Therefore I have an idea of a
universal, unique, login account. Let
done. added a test case to prove it as well
On Nov 9, 2004, at 5:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently without this change, any attempt to change an instance
actually changes the status of all instances! :)
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
done
On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an attempt to comprehend what the bindings are and how they work
for static versus EL types (static appears to be read-only, rather
than a static expression) I hacked up this extra test case which might
be interesting for others...
J
done
On Nov 8, 2004, at 6:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've attached a patch which fixes up the Task insert so that when you
assign a task to a user you can capture the TaskID for the task.
It also avoids the hacky try/catch solution to try update first and
only insert if that fails.
James
On 9 Nov 2004, at 14:54, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 Nov 2004, at 18:53, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I think we may be in violent agreement here :-)
I think we should add some type of collective entity, I just
hesitate to call it a Group as that tends to be associated with a
speci
What about ResponsibleParty?
David
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 Nov 2004, at 18:53, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I think we may be in violent agreement here :-)
I think we should add some type of collective entity, I just hesitate
to call it a Group as that tends to be associated wit
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Agila] assigning tasks to groups of users
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Nov 2004, at 15:58, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >
> >> [EM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 Nov 2004, at 18:53, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I think we may be in violent agreement here :-)
I think we should add some type of collective entity, I just hesitate
to call it a Group as that tends to be associated with a specific
model ( a relatively static set of users a
Please note that the Individual CLA on that site appears to be current,
but the Corporate CLA is downlevel. Also, I think the Software Grant is
not in use at this time and is currently under review by ASF.
Cheers,
Jennifer
Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/09/2004 08:03 AM
Please r
Currently without this change, any attempt to change an instance
actually changes the status of all instances! :)
Index: JDBCUtil.java
===
--- JDBCUtil.java (revision 56926)
+++ JDBCUtil.java (working copy)
@@ -395,7 +395
John,
while we wait for the community feedback...please go ahead and get the
ball rolling for the following items:
- Individual CLA's for each committer
- Corporate CLA's from HP and Globus
- Software Grant from HP and Globus
Details on the forms are at:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
Thanks,
d
Similarly, agila.engine.Instance looks close to
agila.services.InstanceInfo. Could the latter implement the former?
On 9 Nov 2004, at 11:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far they contain most of the same information; but all their
properties are of different names (getBusinessProcessID() versus
Shouldn't this method be renamed to getInstanceInfos() or something to
match more the naming conventions of the rest of the API - such as
BusinessProcessService?
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
-
To unsubscrib
So far they contain most of the same information; but all their
properties are of different names (getBusinessProcessID() versus
getId()) and getName() versus getProcessName().
Firstly can we be a bit more consistent in naming things. Secondly how
about implementing the same interface for these
I'm working on a project using Agila and Tapestry and have created a
few small classes for integrating the two together (e.g.
TapestryRenderer, TapestryRsponseHandler) and I could extract a couple
of fairly simple helper classes for binding responses into Tapestry
pages/events.
Would there be
21 matches
Mail list logo
