Re: [VOTE] Release CXF 2.3.0

+1 (non binding) Hadrian On Oct 7, 2010, at 5:51 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > OK.. it staged faster than I expected. :-) > > Probably LONG overdue, but I think it's time to finally release CXF 2.3.0! > > > The Maven staging area is at: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories

Re: [VOTE] Release CXF 2.2.11

+1 (non-binding) Hadrian On Oct 7, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > > Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that > have been done compared to the 2.2.10 release. Over 56 JIRA issues > are resolved for 2.2.11. > > List of issues: > https://issues.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.3.2

+1 (non-binding) Hadrian On Jan 17, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > 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 bunch of OSGi related issues that are needed for > Came

Re: [CONF] Apache CXF > Commercial CXF Offerings

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 10:14 AM, Eric Johnson wrote: > I agree with Dan and Glenn. Commercial support

Re: [CONF] Apache CXF > Commercial CXF Offerings

There, even non committers get it. Spot on. Thanks Craig for speaking up! Hadrian On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Craig Tataryn wrote: > Speaking as a member of the community (non-commiter outside of a few patches) > I don't have a problem with the claims which the CXF supporting companies > mak

Re: [CONF] Apache CXF > Commercial CXF Offerings

I agree with Jeff. By stating 'a beer' and not stating the alcohol content, you knew the readers will make wrong assumptions. This is strikingly similar to the marketing practices on the apache site. (For the record, the alcohol content was much lower than some wines, not mentioning vodka.) ;)

Re: [CONF] Apache CXF > Commercial CXF Offerings

sponsibilities of being a > commiter. If there was an agreed upon consensus for what is > appropriate then self-policing is possible. However, without that > consensus everyone is right. > Eric > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: >> Eric, I am still t

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CXF 2.4.1

+1 (non-binding). This helps the upcoming camel-2.8.0. Thanks to the CXF community and the release manager. Hadrian On 06/09/2011 01:55 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: We've resolved over 100 issues since 2.4.1 and thus is time for a release. List of issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Relea

Re: [VOTE] New features.xml for 2.6.6

+1 (non-binding) Hadrian On 02/13/2013 01:05 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: There is a problem with the features.xml file for 2.6.6 where a property wasn't expanded. This is a vote to release a 2.6.6.1 versioned features file only that pulls in the 2.6.6 bundles, but correct the property expansion.

Re: Are faults errors?

Hi Bruce, +1 to Hiram's proposal. I cannot speak about the original intentions, but since the idea of fault is only specific to just a few of the technologies camel supports, I think having a fault in an exchange could be quite confusing for other components. I think it should be up to a

Re: Are faults errors?

d, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Bruce, +1 to Hiram's proposal. I cannot speak about the original intentions, but since the idea of fault is only specific to just a few of the technologies camel supports, I think having a fault in

Why are port and operations QNames in the jmx ON?

Hi, I noticed that in the ObjectNames for PerformanceCounter the port and operation are modeled as QName instead of String. I believe that is totally unnecessary and only makes the ONs long and harder to read. Is there a reason for the port and operation to be qnames? The service is a