tuff is a very complex area of code and he's doing a great
>> job picking it up and fixing issues in it.
>>
>> Here's my +1. Vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dk...@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
Johan Edstrom
j...
ttp://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/tags/cxf-2.2.8
>
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> Here is my +1.
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dk...@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
Johan Edstrom
j...@opennms.org
They that can give up essential liberty to purchas
staging areas.
>>
>>
>> This releases are tagged at:
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/tags/cxf-2.0.13
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/tags/cxf-2.1.10
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/tags/cxf-2.2.9
>>
>>
>> The vote will be
you have any concerns and
>>> thoughts about jaxws2.2 api update and endorse dir , please let me
>>> know .
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nab
n work with either OSGi or Axis2. Would that mean that it
> would work in the CXF OSGi environment? Would anyone be interested in
> adopting it? There turns out to be a university research project in Europe
> which is sad to see it heading for the mothballs.
Johan Edstrom
j...@opennms.org
org.apache.cxf.ws.security.policy.interceptors.SecureConversationTokenInterc
>>
>>
> eptorProvider.setupClient(SecureConversationTokenInterceptorProvider.java:16
>> 7)
>>>
>>> even though I can see STSClient.setPolicy(Object policy) method...
>>>
>>> In 2.2.x, the problem is that CXF version gets resolved to
>> 2.3.0-SNAPSHOT,
>>> setting the version to 2.2.11-SNAPSHOT results in the async binding test
>>> failures.
>>>
>>> Can someone please give it a try and confirm it is just not me only ?
>> Now,
>>> assuming there're regressions, I'd have to start investigating. Given
>> that
>>> I'm a bit raw so to say in this area, any help will be appreciated
>>>
>>> thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Johan Edstrom
j...@opennms.org
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
gt; scheme to make Spring more removable to assist some volunteer in
> working on it?
>
> There are some WS-*'s that would make an impression.
>
> Java-first issues sure attract the vocal if not the numerous.
Johan Edstrom
j...@opennms.org
They that can give up essentia
relatively independent bundles that an "OSGIBus" could grab via tha OSGi
>> registries and such.Yea. Brain is noodling, but hasn't gotten very far
>> yet.
>>
>
> +1 for the OSGiBus idea, I saw lots of customer issues about using a wrong
> bus configura
us, with a
> couple of managers. It would hopefully simplify things a bit. We don't
> really need 3 bus implementations. :-)
>
> Make sense?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 5:22:00 pm Adrian Trenaman wrote:
>> +1 for an osgibus!
&
xjc-utils-2.3.0/
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/build-utils/tags/cxf-build-utils-2.3.0/
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> (I'm not voting yet, need to test it a bit first)
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dk...
+1 (non-binding)
On Oct 10, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
Johan Edstrom
j...@opennms.org
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylva
sh what he started working upon.
>
> Thus the time has come for him to become the CXF committer.
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Sergey
Johan Edstrom
j...@opennms.org
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
+1 - Non binding.
On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:57 PM, 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
+1 - Non Binding.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> Once again, there have been a bunch of bug fixes and enhancements that
>> have been done compared to the 2.2.11 release. Over 43 JIRA issues
>> are res
+1 - Non binding.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
> +1
>
> On 12/02/2010 06:01 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure
Admittedly that thread was more entertaining.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Andreas Veithen wrote:
>> I just hate it when people make misleading statements.
>
> BTW, I apply the same standards to my fellow Axis2 developers [1],
> just in case somebody thinks that I'm trying to promote a particular
Dan,
Do we have a transition guide on this?
I'm 100% for a move, where does this hit existing 2.x code?
On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:26 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
Well, you can't get pizza that is decent in the US anyways, :P
On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:28 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> -1... what is reputable? Who decides who is "reputable"? Am I reputable?
>
> Apache is not about tooting your own horn. Go back to your respective
> company and have them purchas
Congratulations Dennis!
Axis next?
/je
On Feb 19, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Craig Tataryn wrote:
> Congrats Dennis! On a side note: I too have a Polish last name but it seems
> only the Russians recognize it.
>
> Craig
>
> On 2011-02-19, at 7:19 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>
>> I'm counting 11 committe
Do you have a need to compile within netbeans?
If you use maven and want to use a snapshot, doing a
mvn clean install -Pfastinstall is far simpler, then you just rely on the jars.
/je
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:39 PM, robert wrote:
> Has anyone been able to compile the full CXF source using NetBean
With vested interest, a strong non-binding +1 :)
On Apr 14, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Freeman Fang wrote:
> +1
>
> Freeman
> On 2011-4-13, at 下午3:51, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> It's been about 6 months since the release of 2.3 and we've done a fantastic
>> job implenting new features and cleaning up
http://cxf.apache.org/docs/jax-ws-java-first-with-jms-transport.html
On May 2, 2011, at 9:08 AM, more.harshal2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Let me try this one.
>
> Then what is pupose of
>
> tag in bean.xml?
>
> Thanks.
> Harshal
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://cxf.547215.n5.
Yes?
On May 9, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Harshal wrote:
> Can we developed our own queuing mechanism?
>
> Not willing to use JMS.
+1 Non-Binding
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> +1
>
> Christian
>
> Am 09.06.2011 19:55, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
>> 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/ReleaseNote.jspa?
Nothing prevents that.
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:20, "marcin.kasinski" wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Sorry for my additional question but I think I haven't describe my problem
> clearly.
>
> Thank you for mentioned samples.
>
>
> In this examples I have to start additional code Broker and JMSServer as
Can we download em and mark it as not functional from the M$ side?
On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Freeman Fang wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Due to the Microsoft WCF security related server down for quite a
> while(probably over a year and I'm not sure if they can come back again), so
> the ws_security/
I'd love to have this in trunk.
+1 on in trunk,
+1 on this being available - it is one of the core questions asked in
enterprise setups.
+1 also for making this very very very modular.
/je
On Sep 15, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Freeman Fang wrote:
>
> On 2011-9-16, at 上午1:07, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
Dan, as an ASF member, are you allowed to send an email asking if we can copy
this down into
svn?
On Sep 15, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Freeman Fang wrote:
>
> On 2011-9-16, at 上午12:56, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> Colm and I were discussing this a bit yesterday as well. I'm not really sure
>> what t
Do you have the full stack trace?
On Sep 17, 2011, at 7:52 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Can you check if you installed any other spring jar in your web container
> share lib ?
>
> On Sat Sep 17 03:56:27 2011, marcin.kasinski wrote:
>> All spring jars are installed within application.
>>
>> dir ..
I'd really like to get the blueprint httpj: stuff in for that.
On Oct 7, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> How do people feel about getting out a 2.5.0 release? It looks like we've got
> some very nice new features either added or in the process of being added to
> the trunk, and it'd
If async in a client is a "loop" then only 2 really makes sense, that forces
all the error handling on the client though.
#3 is a possible thing a #2 could do?
Number 1 is just an "INONLY" and thx, k bai type solution?
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> I have a question f
Hey,
Just poking around in the features, and yes I cross post this -
I know there has been work going on with regards to creating a sane default set
of features
but currently the CXF features in 2.4.2 (I think it was) uses spring 3.0.6, the
karaf features 3.0.5
and the camel features actually
natype OBR repo last week, that would help.
/je
On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:26 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Friday, October 14, 2011 11:58:26 PM Johan Edstrom wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Just poking around in the features, and yes I cross post this -
>>
>> I know there has
gt;> first looking if there's a feature descriptor installed that matches the
>> version range and only then trying to resolve and install it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert Vanthienen
>>
>> FuseSource
>> Web: http://fusesour
I'd like to see this going out - since JBI isn't part of the release anymore
the SMX trains would need some work anyways, right?
If the 2.4.4 release is "waiting" on smx, what is the problem with picking up
2.5.1/2.5.2 later?
- why hold up 2.5.0?
/je
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Kulp
+1 - non-binding
On Oct 29, 2011, at 5:22 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 10/29/2011 12:37 PM, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>> +1.
>>
>> Colm.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Christian Schneider
>> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am
ve to interfere with that, the
osgi servlet, now that is
a potential different discussion, what is the right handling of SSL on that
side?
On Feb 6, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Aki Yoshida wrote:
> 2012/2/6 Johan Edstrom :
>> I got about as far as looking at the http:jetty schemas and was hoping I&#x
Thank you sirs!
On Mar 20, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Freeman Fang wrote:
> Ok, rallback this change on our fixes branches.
>
> Thanks
> Freeman
> On 2012-3-20, at 下午9:34, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm concerned about this commit. This could potentially remove jars from
>> peoples classpaths which c
+1
On Mar 27, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> For 2.6, we'll need a newer version of cxf-xjc and I'd like to get that out
> ahead of time. There is also a minor checkstyle change in cxf-buildtoosl
> Would there be any objection if I did that build tomorrow or thursday just
> to
+1 - non binding.
On Apr 13, 2012, at 8:55, Glen Mazza wrote:
> +1
>
> Glen
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Apache-CXF-2-6-0-tp5636705p5638535.html
> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
+1
On Apr 12, 2012, at 14:23, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> We've resolved over 110 issues since 2.5.2 which is a very large amount.
> We've back ported over 75 of them to 2.4.7 and 25 to 2.3.10. These patch
> releases are certainly overdue.
>
>
> List of issues:
> 2.3.10:
> https://issues.apa
+1 - non binding.
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> +1
>
> Christian
>
> Am 24.04.2012 20:30, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
>> Just wanted to open up a discussion about dropping support for 2.3.x.
>> 2.3.0 was release over 18 months ago. Since then, 2.4.x was released over a
>>
With this last one, are there any other BP components missing?
Thanks Willem btw!
On May 21, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for the hint, I just commit the new patch to get ride of blueprint
> schema.
>
> On Mon May 21 22:41:12 2012, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
+1
On May 31, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> +1
>
> Christian
>
> Am 30.05.2012 20:15, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
>>
>> We've resolved over 90 issues since 2.6.0 was released. We've back ported
>> over 70 of them to 2.5.4 and 40 to 2.4.8 and 25 to 2.3.11.
>>
>>
>> List of issues:
+1
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Aki Yoshida wrote:
> +1
>
> aki
>
> 2012/8/22 Daniel Kulp :
>>
>> The Karaf features.xml file that was released with 2.5.5 is corrupt which is
>> preventing it from actually being usable to install CXF 2.5.5 into Karaf.
>> This vote is just to release a new
+1 non-binding.
On Oct 6, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
> On Oct 6, 2012, at 5:40 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We've resolved over 48 issues since 2.6.2 with a bunch of them fairly
>> important.
>>
>> List of issues:
>> 2.4.10
>> https://issues.apache.org/j
+1 non binding.
On Oct 6, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
> On Oct 6, 2012, at 5:43 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> It's been 6 months since 2.6.x was first released and thus time for the next
>> big thing. :-)
>>
>> We have several new features including two new tra
Did some simple testing, +1 - non binding and Thanks to the CXF guys!
On May 7, 2013, at 7:01 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
> On May 7, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> We've resolved over 40 issues since 2.7.4. Not a lot, but it includes an
>> OSGi fix that is bl
+1
Non binding.
On Jul 19, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 2:04 AM, Christian Schneider
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/17 Daniel Kulp
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We've resolved over 75 issues since 2.7.5 and almost 50 ported back to
If it is just a wish list item, file a jira.
If you are intending to write it, dev is a good start, a icla on file and then
some sort of sandbox if it is a bigger contribution.
Ongoing design discussion on dev is also a good thing.
Sent from my pressure cooker.
On Dec 8, 2013, at 13:24, Yossi
+1 (non binding)
And thanks!!!
On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> +1
>
> - Dennis
>
> On 01/30/2014 11:03 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>> We've resolved over 60 issues since 2.7.8 and almost 40 ported back to
>> 2.6.12.
>>
>>
>> List of issues:
>> 2.6.12
>> https://issues
Issue 2 is not an issue.
On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:47 PM, iris ding wrote:
> Thanks Daniel for your quick response.
>
> Although the javadoc for avaliable() is not promised to return the length.
> There also reasons we need to convert the incomming InputStream to a
> java.io.** .: The incomming in
The second?
Same reason I wouldn't change the JVM if I used Guava.
you are confusing impl with Interface.
/je
On Jun 30, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> I’m not sure the first one is something I’d consider bug either. Per spec,
> we need to just support “DataSource” as a parameter
+1 non binding Johan Edstrom - via HopOn October 8, 2014 at 19:18 GMT, Jason
Pell wrote:+1 (non binding)
54 matches
Mail list logo
