On 11/07/2011 02:45 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Wouldn't it be easier to have us build with Logger 3.0.x ?
Yes, however it would also fail because as it turns out, 3.0.x doesn't
contain the annotations and classes required by the current CR of the
logging processor. The annotations shouldn't b
On 7 nov. 2011, at 21:45, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure if this is a blocking problem; it surely isn't
> great that it won't work on AS <7.1 but we have to move forward.
> Emmanuel, would this be an acceptable limitation for Search ?
It sure is not user friendly.
__
Wouldn't it be easier to have us build with Logger 3.0.x ?
I don't think the shade approach is the way to go; it wouldn't work in
AS 7.1, which is our final goal.
What about including the missing class only as a provided dependency,
to be used with older AS versions? Assuming that would work with
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that one. That will affect any logger
interface which extends BasicLogger.
One possible (albeit crappy) workaround might be to use
maven-shade-plugin to pull that class into the project and rewrite the
generated references to it. That's probably a huge pain thoug
I thought this was an expected limitation, since the Logger
implementations generated by the latest tools depend on the new logger
classes.
We're having a Shrinkwrap+Arquillian test in Hibernate Search itself
which creates a test app containing it's own latest build and deploys
it to a test-manage
There are two problems:
* JBLOGGING-74 - opened last week, is not a blocker but has some
consequences on performance
* second is that if we go with 3.1 it will not work on all releases
of AS7 having 3.0.x.; Which means for all the people waiting for
Hibernate 4.0.0.Final won't have a nice AS to p
On Mon 07 Nov 2011 10:32:33 AM CST, Łukasz Antoniak wrote:
>
> The whole idea of supporting multiline statements is that users would
> like to execute the scripts they already have (and for example execute
> in SQL*Plus for production) without applying extra modifications. The
> "continuation" symb
Yep, we have it running against 3.1.0.Beta3 which is the latest release
published.
On 7 nov. 2011, at 17:27, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> I can look into it tonight. Have you tested with the latest 3.1.0 release to
> verify there are no problems?
>
> On 11/07/2011 09:51 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
Thanks Steve for your replay.
The whole idea of supporting multiline statements is that users would
like to execute the scripts they already have (and for example execute
in SQL*Plus for production) without applying extra modifications. The
"continuation" symbol/operator would be useless for them.
Yep, I replied on that thread.
On Mon 07 Nov 2011 09:48:46 AM CST, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> I have one subject on the table.
>
> Should we go for JBoss Logging Beta3 and release this week or wait for JBoss
> Logging 1.0.0.Final and wait till James or David release it.
> Based on that decision, I
I have not seen the discussion to which you refer. The issue, in my
experience, is that it really takes the project lead being extremely
proactive about the scheduling of issues. And we just don't have that
type of bandwidth.
On Fri 04 Nov 2011 05:40:15 AM CDT, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> ## Ti
Specifically, is there anyway to get org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging to
Final/GA in the next few days? The generator/processor is irrelevant
as far as we are concerned for a Hibernate release.
On Mon 07 Nov 2011 09:47:08 AM CST, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Which really sucks since 4.0 Final is slat
I have one subject on the table.
Should we go for JBoss Logging Beta3 and release this week or wait for JBoss
Logging 1.0.0.Final and wait till James or David release it.
Based on that decision, I will release Commons Annotations and update Core.
On 7 nov. 2011, at 16:46, Steve Ebersole wrote:
Which really sucks since 4.0 Final is slated for 2 days.
Ugh.
On Fri 04 Nov 2011 10:59:24 AM CDT, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> Do you know when JBoss Logging 3.1.0.GA will hit the road. I can't really
> release Hibernate Commons Annotations nor Core etc until we have the final
> version. I mean w
I will not be able to make the meeting tomorrow. I think the only real
pressing thing on the docket would have been 4.0 Final go/no-go. I
think we are good to go for Final. We can just discuss that via email.
Or, y'all can still have a meeting if there are other things you would
like to disc
No! That is not a good idea. It introduces unnecessary loss of
backwards compatibility.
Another option that is backwards compatible is to instead handle
multi-line commands specially by introducing a "continuation"
symbol/operator. Think `\` on *nix. The idea being that a line ending
with
16 matches
Mail list logo
