Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
So far we have 8 binding votes and I was wondering what the official
time period was for the voting window? Is it 72 hours as it is for
everything else? Just want to move on to the next phase of the process
if that is permissible at this point. Here are the votes that
On 18 Jul 06, at 9:46 AM 18 Jul 06, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
So far we have 8 binding votes and I was wondering what the
official time period was for the voting window? Is it 72 hours as
it is for everything else? Just want to move on to the next phase
of the process i
I started writing a long draft probably 10 times, but stopped short of
pressing the "send" button. At this point, i know exactly who will
say what, no matter which position i take (based on feedback i got
during ApacheCon EU).
I am happy that Peter and Jim are there as mentors. I trust them and
Jason van Zyl wrote:
So you wouldn't mind of mine humble non binding -1
vote. Like said, I don't have nothing against
that project, but like in many things in life
even the ASF seems to behave in the spirit of:
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
That's very sad :(
I don't think it's that hard t
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Well, I just expressed my opinion as an ASF member, because this
project and their mentors show no respect to the other members
feelings about it.
It is possible to respect other's feelings without agreeing with
them. That's the case here.
I
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
So you wouldn't mind of mine humble non binding -1
vote. Like said, I don't have nothing against
that project, but like in many things in life
even the ASF seems to behave in the spirit of:
Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
On 18 Jul 06, at 11:04 AM 18 Jul 06, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
So you wouldn't mind of mine humble non binding -1
vote. Like said, I don't have nothing against
that project, but like in many things in life
even the ASF seems to behave in the spirit of:
Quod licet Jovi non licet
Mladen Turk wrote:
> So you wouldn't mind of mine humble non binding -1
> vote. Like said, I don't have nothing against
> that project, but like in many things in life
> even the ASF seems to behave in the spirit of:
> Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.
> That's very sad :(
Context? To what double
Hi,
On 12 Jul 06, at 12:53 PM 12 Jul 06, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
One thing at a time :-)
I'll try to whip this off and check it in for people to look at.
can you ping the list after it?
I have deployed a snapshot of the plugin and the source code is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos
Hi,
I setup a JIRA project if anyone finds any glitches in the output:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MDOAP
Jason.
On 18 Jul 06, at 11:52 AM 18 Jul 06, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
On 12 Jul 06, at 12:53 PM 12 Jul 06, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
One thing at a time :-)
I'll try to whip this
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Well, I just expressed my opinion as an ASF member, because this
project and their mentors show no respect to the other members
feelings about it.
I don't think there is any disrespect but there may be a difference of
opinion but that's not the same thing. There's always
On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Well, I just expressed my opinion as an ASF member, because this
project and their mentors show no respect to the other members
feelings about it.
I don't think there is any disrespect but there may be a
difference of opi
Comments in line:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
== Interactions with the specifications ==
The specification is being developed by group of companies, under a
contract that requires the resulting work to be published to a
standards body.
Which standards body? What lic
On 7/18/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Comments in line:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> == Interactions with the specifications ==
> The specification is being developed by group of companies, under a
> contract that requires the resulting work to be publ
Thanks for the comments - I will be brief and then we can have follow up
exchange as required. comments in-line.
Brian McCallister wrote:
Comments in line:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
== Interactions with the specifications ==
The specification is being developed by
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 7/15/06, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everyone else that has been working with Dave is already an ASF
committer with a CLA on file at the ASF:
Trustin Lee
Dan Diephouse
Alex Karasulu
Yes let's get that software grant and a CLA from you Dave. Considering
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> > since some members thinks that insulting our fellows
> > is actually a great joke, and something one should
> > be proud off, I'm fine.
> Well, let me just say that once a project is within
> the incubator, and someone is on the PPMC, things
> become
On Jul 18, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
since some members thinks that insulting our fellows
is actually a great joke, and something one should
be proud off, I'm fine.
Well, let me just say that once a project is within
the incubator, an
IMHO, Anyone can say anything he/she wants on any forum. I just
checked my responses to the threads that i posted [1] and i don't see
me asking anyone to change any behavior. If i did, please accept my
apologies. After all, it's a free country.
thanks,
dims
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=in
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
William Rowe's response to him fairly well summed up the issue(s). I have
relatively little concern regarding castigating projects for failings, even
if the criticism could be expressed more constructively than acerbic
On 7/18/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Mladen Turk wrote:
>>> since some members thinks that insulting our fellows
>>> is actually a great joke, and something one should
>>> be proud off, I'm fine.
Craig Russell wrote:
> To get very specific, I understand that posting insults on Apache
> mailing lists is forbidden.
Correct.
> But are you also saying that we expect him to:
> no longer post insults regarding any topic on bileblog, or
No, I am not saying that. Personally, I am not "narcissi
On 7/12/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
There has been plenty of discussion around the CeltiXfire proposal,
we feel that all the issues forwarded have been addressed, and we
would now like to officially propose CeltiXfire to the Incubator for
consideration. The proposal can be f
Jason,
I am +1 for the project, overall.
I do suggest that we start out with the PPMC of you and the other Mentors,
have you bring Dan and other appropriate people onto the PMC as your first
order of business, and them go about selecting Committers. From what I
recall at ApacheCon, there was som
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I do suggest that we start out with the PPMC of you and the other Mentors,
> have you bring Dan and other appropriate people onto the PMC [...]
<> Typo. Hopefully that was obvious. Meant to say PPMC.
--- Noel
--
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
> > But are you also saying that we expect him to:
> > no longer post insults regarding any topic on bileblog, or
> > no longer post insults regarding any Apache project on bileblog, or
> > no longer post insults regarding any Apache committer o
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 03:07, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> I have provided a direct link to one of the docs on our site
> http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/amqp/amqp_0-8_specification.pdf
The license is for the specification, which is far from an obvious one, so I
would suggest to run this via [EMAIL PRO
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:24, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 7/17/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Or do we just turn
> > them off, with a bounce notice that people interested in resurrecting the
> > project contact us on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That's probably the easiest thing to
Hi Carl
This sounds like a great proposal.
I just have a couple of questions.
On 18/07/2006, at 5:10 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
== RATIONALE ==
Blaze provides multiple language implementations of the Advanced
Messaged Queuing Protocol (AMQP) specification and related
technologies including P
Ian Holsman wrote:
> isn't Active MQ an alternative to Blaze/AMQP ?
> If this project was accepted would Apache have *2* different
> messaging servers?
Ant and Maven? Axis2 and XFire? GUMP and Maven Continuum?
> which use different protocols ?
Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> Your license and any rights under this Agreement will terminate
> immediately without notice from any Author if you bring any
> claim, suit, demand, or action related to the Advanced Messaging
> Queue Protocol Specification against any Author. Upon termination,
> you shall d
On 19/07/2006, at 1:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
isn't Active MQ an alternative to Blaze/AMQP ?
If this project was accepted would Apache have *2* different
messaging servers?
Ant and Maven? Axis2 and XFire? GUMP and Maven Continuum?
I don't see this as a good thing.
On 7/12/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
There has been plenty of discussion around the CeltiXfire proposal,
we feel that all the issues forwarded have been addressed, and we
would now like to officially propose CeltiXfire to the Incubator for
consideration. The proposal can be f
On 7/18/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the comments - I will be brief and then we can have follow up
exchange as required. comments in-line.
Brian McCallister wrote:
> Comments in line:
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>
>> == Interactions with th
Ian Holsman wrote:
> how hard would it be for the AMQP protocol to be implemented
> inside/on top of ActiveMQ ?
The whole point is for the AMQP *protocol* to be ubiquitous across all
messaging engines, not just one implementation of one API. Which implies
that, yes, they would like for it to be
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Totally unrelated ... JMS has the ability to create a message filter, but
one of the limitations is that the filter is applied when the receiver is
created, rather than when a get operation is executed. This makes sense for
the push receiver
On 7/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/07/2006, at 1:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>> isn't Active MQ an alternative to Blaze/AMQP ?
>> If this project was accepted would Apache have *2* different
>> messaging servers?
>
> Ant and Maven? Axis2 and XFire
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for interoperable messaging.
ActiveMQ implements multiple protocols. There is some disagreement between
AMQP proponents and the ActiveMQ team regarding the desirability of
balk
38 matches
Mail list logo
