I updated the page to change IONA to Progress and add a list of CXF's features.
Is there any other information people would like to see on the page?
-Original Message-
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:47 PM
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
I think Robert's idea is solid overall. The command line tools should
have good help text and the Apache hosted docs should be presented in
a uniform manner.
However, we cannot ask outside entities to conform to our standards.
Corporate tech writing departments all have their own sets of
standards
Is the IDL->WSDL maven plug-in still called idltowsdl or has it been
changed to idl2wsdl to keep it in line with the command line tool?
+1
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I'd like to initiate a vote for Łukasz Moreń to become a CXF committer.
>>
>> You may recall that Łukasz came forward and proposed to have OAuth 1.0
>> impl
+1
On Thursday, December 2, 2010, Freeman Fang wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards
> Freeman
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> In the last 2 years, Colm has logged 11 issues with CXF. Every single one
>> of
>> them came with a patch file to fix the issue:
>>
>>
>> https://issu
+1
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> +1
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 18.01.2011 05:26, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
>>
>> We've had a busy 8 weeks or so despite the holidays. We've managed to
>> fix over 75 JIRA issues since 2.3.1 which is quite remarkable . This also
>> fixes a
I agree with Dan and Glenn. Commercial support makes CXF stronger and
provides a way for active committers (and some inactive one as well)
to earn a living while doing what they love doing.
Letting companies put up some marketing blurb on the support page
and/or on a dedicated Commercial Offering p
at 10:52 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Eric, I am still trying to decide if you are serious or just fooling around.
> I thought we clarified this in private. Public is fine too. Comments inline.
>
> If I come across as upset, I am!
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 1
roject and also for people
>> who remove or edit these statements. Without a policy that is backed by
>> a vote everyone can claim he is right and the others are wrong.
>> Of course we should also refer to any rules that the Apache organization
>> has for such statements that
For many of the major decisions this sort of discussion is done on the
mailing list and archived.
On Saturday, February 19, 2011, Christian Schneider
wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.02.2011 14:47, schrieb Glen Mazza:
>
> On 2/19/2011 8:24 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>
>
> The second thing I would like to
+1
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> +1
>
> thanks, Sergey
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>
>> We've resolved over 50 issues since 2.3.2. Thus, we really should get
>> 2.3.3 out, especially since 2.3.2 contained an issue preventing it from
I think 2 is a better option for a general audience. Not everyone will
want to use Maven and leaving a few Ant ready examples in place will
help non-Maven users see how to set up their environment.
>From a maintenance perspective getting rid of the samples-lib folder
and any Ant build scripts that
+1 to the antbuild idea.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> Sounds good. My WSDL-first tutorial shows how Ant can be used
> (http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/entry/web_service_tutorial), I can
> incorporate that into a new CXF sample (I've been meaning to rip out the Ant
> from th
ether each is covered by the CXF implementation. Since
the specification has changed slightly since the last working draft -
mostly to clarify the assertions, and fix some oversights - it would
actually be useful to know about CXF with respect to our latest working
copy, and its assertions [5], and
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the very quick response. Sorry, I've been a little swamped.
My best attempt at answers follows.
On 4/5/11 7:45 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Monday 04 April 2011 5:32:49 PM Eric Johnson wrote:
I've a question for the CXF developers. To quickly introduce mysel
+1
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Finally! ;-) Yes.. I think its a good idea.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> I want to start a discussion about removing the JBI related modules on trunk.
>> There is the JBI binding, JBI transport,
You could look at:
http://fusesource.com/docs/framework/2.4/bind_trans/SoapOverJms.html
http://fusesource.com/docs/framework/2.4/bind_trans/FUSECXFJMS.html
http://fusesource.com/docs/framework/2.4/jaxws/SoapOverJmsJava.html
They all have plenty of examples on using the various JMS options for CXF.
+1 to clearing out some of the cruft.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> I was kind of poking around to see how some other projects handle feature
> requests for things likely not to ever be implemented as we're a similar
> situations. We have a bunch of JIRA's logged years
+1 to removing the http binding. It is time to retire it.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
>
> What do you think of dropping a couple of modules for 2.5:
>
> - both rt-bindings-local and rt-bindings-object seem to do the same thing, I
> recall there were some interest
I totally agree that samples should work. If we cannot get the interop
stuff to work due to external dependencies, we should move them out of
the samples folder. If we want to keep them as is, we can put them in
a special folder with a README that clearly states that they may or
may not work.
On
I'd say either nuke it or update it to work with Maven.
If it looks like nobody really cares about MTOSI, nuking it is
probably the way to go.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
> Hi Team, we have two MTOSI examples in the CXF samples list -- they're rather
> old (presently not
I totally agree wit Glen on this. It should either be in or out. If a
company that provides their own distro of CXF wants to include the
MTOSI sample and the documentation for it, then that it OK for them.
The CXF community does not need to clutter up the distro with samples
that show an edge case
I think 2) is sufficient. Most people will be looking for the Javadocs for the latest version of the one of the supported releases. I'm all for more information versus less information, but keeping every version of the Javadocs on the Web site starts getting to the point of diminishing returns.Eric
+1Eric JohnsonPrinciple Technical Writer | FuseSource Corp.emjohn...@fusesource.com | fusesource.comoffice: (781) 280-4174skype: finnmccumial | twitter: @finnmccumialblog: http://documentingit.blogspot.com/On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:On 24/04/12 19:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:Just
I like the idea of custom annotations for making the Java-first stuff
work better.
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 11:17 -0400, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Now that 2.1.1 is being voted on, I'd like to step back a bit and talk
> a little about ideas for the next versions.
>
> First, most likely, we'll need to
I like the use of "you" also. It avoids needlessly convoluted syntax
and it makes the messages a little more personal.
That said consistency is king.
How about:
Configure a and set the
jndiConnectionFactoryName.
The jmsConfig property is required.
Benson's suggestion for the second error mes
I know I should remember the answer to this, but I'm suffering from a
senior moment
Does the updated JMS configuration change the WSDL extensions for
specifying the JMS endpoint in WSDL?
-
Eric Johnson
Principal Technical Writer
MII-KS, FUSE
Progress Software Corporation
-Ori
27 matches
Mail list logo
