done On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > Seems there is a Nov. 24th drop now.... Can you pull it and drop into my directory? > > > Thanks, > Donald > > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> Ok - it's there now. Sorry about that. I would've sworn I actually had done it >> geir >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> Oh, I could swear I dropped it into your directory already. >>> >>> Let me check and put it there if not. >>> >>> geir >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Donald Woods wrote: >>> >>>> Any updates on getting this? >>>> >>>> >>>> -Donald >>>> >>>> >>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>> There is. I'll get it later this morning (needs a real network as this sucker is 809MB... and they say that Java SE is bloated....) >>>>> geir >>>>> On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Donald Woods wrote: >>>>>> Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on p.a.o and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Donald
Ah! my apologies. thanks -- dims On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote: > The spec leads are Red Hat (299) and SpringSource/Google (330) . > > Regards, > Tim > > On 2 Dec 2009 19:07, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum@gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks, > > Looks like we voted YES on JSR 299 and 330 in Sept/Nov 2009..Any idea what > happened? > > http://blogs.sun.com/theaquarium/resource/JCPVotes2Dec2009.html > > thanks, > dims > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
The spec leads are Red Hat (299) and SpringSource/Google (330) . Regards, Tim On 2 Dec 2009 19:07, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum@gmail.com> wrote: Folks, Looks like we voted YES on JSR 299 and 330 in Sept/Nov 2009..Any idea what happened? http://blogs.sun.com/theaquarium/resource/JCPVotes2Dec2009.html thanks, dims
What do you mean "what happened"? On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Folks, > > Looks like we voted YES on JSR 299 and 330 in Sept/Nov 2009..Any idea what happened? > > http://blogs.sun.com/theaquarium/resource/JCPVotes2Dec2009.html > > thanks, > dims
Folks, Looks like we voted YES on JSR 299 and 330 in Sept/Nov 2009..Any idea what happened? http://blogs.sun.com/theaquarium/resource/JCPVotes2Dec2009.html thanks, dims
Seems there is a Nov. 24th drop now.... Can you pull it and drop into my directory? Thanks, Donald Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Ok - it's there now. Sorry about that. I would've sworn I actually had done it > > geir > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> Oh, I could swear I dropped it into your directory already. >> >> Let me check and put it there if not. >> >> geir >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Donald Woods wrote: >> >>> Any updates on getting this? >>> >>> >>> -Donald >>> >>> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>> There is. I'll get it later this morning (needs a real network as this sucker is 809MB... and they say that Java SE is bloated....) >>>> geir >>>> On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Donald Woods wrote: >>>>> Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on p.a.o and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Donald > >
Ok - it's there now. Sorry about that. I would've sworn I actually had done it geir On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Oh, I could swear I dropped it into your directory already. > > Let me check and put it there if not. > > geir > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > >> Any updates on getting this? >> >> >> -Donald >> >> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> There is. I'll get it later this morning (needs a real network as this sucker is 809MB... and they say that Java SE is bloated....) >>> geir >>> On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Donald Woods wrote: >>>> Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on p.a.o and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Donald >
Oh, I could swear I dropped it into your directory already. Let me check and put it there if not. geir On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > Any updates on getting this? > > > -Donald > > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> There is. I'll get it later this morning (needs a real network as this sucker is 809MB... and they say that Java SE is bloated....) >> geir >> On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Donald Woods wrote: >>> Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on p.a.o and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Donald
Any updates on getting this? -Donald Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > There is. I'll get it later this morning (needs a real network as this > sucker is 809MB... and they say that Java SE is bloated....) > > geir > > On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > >> Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated >> Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on p.a.o >> and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? >> >> Thanks, >> Donald > >
The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the release of MyFaces
Core 1.2.8.
MyFaces Core is a JavaServer(tm) Faces 1.2 implementation as specified
by JSR-252. MyFaces Core has passed Sun's JSR-252 TCK and is 100%
compliant with the JSR-252 specification.
MyFaces Core 1.2.8 is available in both binary and source distributions.
* http://myfaces.apache.org/download.html
MyFaces Core is also available in the central Maven repository under
Group ID "org.apache.myfaces.core".
Release Notes - MyFaces Core - Version 1.2.8
Bug
* [MYFACES-1896] - FacesConfigurator version check incorrect
* [MYFACES-1955] - MyFaces 1.2.4 and WebLogic 10.3- strict servlet
API: cannot call getWriter() after getOutputStream()
* [MYFACES-2216] - MyFaces suppresses runtime exceptions thrown in
ActionListeners
* [MYFACES-2256] - oamSetHiddenInput should not ignore
nodeName=='input' (lower case characters)
* [MYFACES-2289] - Build failure due to missing symbol
FacesContext.setCurrentPhaseId()
* [MYFACES-2338] - MyFaces 1.2 has dependency to JDK 1.6
* [MYFACES-2339] - RenderKitUtils should give better error if
someone uses an incorrect default-render-kit-id
* [MYFACES-2343] - ConverterImplTag always wrap with DelegateConverter
* [MYFACES-2370] - 'invokeOnComponent' method in UIData does not
properly process <h:column> header/footer facets
* [MYFACES-2371] - NullPointerException on
UIComponentClassicTagBase.getViewComponentIds() fixed on branch 2.0.x
but not on branch 1.2.x
* [MYFACES-2380] - DefaultRestoreViewSupport.calculateViewId does
not calculate viewId properly on portlet case
* [MYFACES-2382] - Duplicate id exception when weblogic portal and
jsf native portlet (faces-adapter.jar) is used
* [MYFACES-2383] - If jsf 1.2 methods of ExternalContext are called
with a jsf 1.1 impl, by default it should call default ones
* [MYFACES-2388] - Link to download FILE on a Dialog fails of FF
Improvement
* [MYFACES-2154] - mobile internet explorer version 6.12 issue
* [MYFACES-2335] - Improve the plugin mechanism
* [MYFACES-2373] - Add a way to document event capabilities for
components using myfaces builder plugin
* [MYFACES-2377] - Include global config parameters javadoc on
myfaces-metadata using some myfaces builder plugin annotation
* [MYFACES-2400] - Allow choose directories when building
myfaces-metadata.xml with myfaces-builder-plugin
regards
Leonardo Uribe
There is. I'll get it later this morning (needs a real network as this sucker is 809MB... and they say that Java SE is bloated....) geir On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated > Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on > p.a.o and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? > > Thanks, > Donald
Heard someone mention that there is a new JEE6 drop available dated Oct. 30th. Can someone download a copy to my home directory on p.a.o and I'll move it over to our Geronimo zone for testing? Thanks, Donald
Are there any stand-alone TCK drops of JSR-303 available, or is waiting to be dropped with the final JEE6 TCKs? -Donald
p.s. The R4.2 TCK goes final toward the end of this month... On 10/2/09 21:17, Richard S. Hall wrote: > Yeah, i've noticed since two people have already asked... > > The word I hear is that we might see something once the R4.2 TCK goes > final...I will keep on it. > > -> richard > > > On 10/2/09 20:58, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >> Richard, >> >> How are things going on this front? There's been some discussion on >> the Aries podling about TCKs. >> >> >> Regards, >> Alan >>
Yeah, i've noticed since two people have already asked... The word I hear is that we might see something once the R4.2 TCK goes final...I will keep on it. -> richard On 10/2/09 20:58, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Richard, > > How are things going on this front? There's been some discussion on > the Aries podling about TCKs. > > > Regards, > Alan >
Richard, How are things going on this front? There's been some discussion on the Aries podling about TCKs. Regards, Alan
Yep, that's what's in the doc. geir On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > >> Excellent! Let us know when we're "clear"... Thanks! > > Geir tells me that we're clear. It's my understanding that we need > to carry the following NOTICE: > > This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed > under the Java Community Process (JCP). The code is untested and > presumed not to be a compatible implementation of the <specification- > name>. We encourage you to migrate to an implementation of the > <specification-name> that has been tested and verified to be > compatible as soon as such an implementation is available, and we > encourage you to retain this notice in any implementation of > <specification-name> that you distribute. > > --kevan >
On Aug 28, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > Excellent! Let us know when we're "clear"... Thanks! Geir tells me that we're clear. It's my understanding that we need to carry the following NOTICE: This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed under the Java Community Process (JCP). The code is untested and presumed not to be a compatible implementation of the <specification- name>. We encourage you to migrate to an implementation of the <specification-name> that has been tested and verified to be compatible as soon as such an implementation is available, and we encourage you to retain this notice in any implementation of <specification-name> that you distribute. --kevan
Sorry - got it up on mino, but got distracted and didn't move it. In your home dir now. Note the 800MB size.... geir On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote: > Any updates on getting a new JEE6 CTS drop? > > > -Donald > > > Donald Woods wrote: >> Heard that there was a new CTS dated Aug. 29 available. Can >> someone download and post it to my or David Blevins directory on >> people, so we can copy it over to geronimo.zones for our TCK testing? >> Thanks, >> Donald
Any updates on getting a new JEE6 CTS drop? -Donald Donald Woods wrote: > Heard that there was a new CTS dated Aug. 29 available. Can someone > download and post it to my or David Blevins directory on people, so we > can copy it over to geronimo.zones for our TCK testing? > > > Thanks, > Donald >
Heard that there was a new CTS dated Aug. 29 available. Can someone download and post it to my or David Blevins directory on people, so we can copy it over to geronimo.zones for our TCK testing? Thanks, Donald
Excellent! Let us know when we're "clear"... Thanks! Kevin On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote: > This is a non-issue. We have discussed this with sun separately, and have > established an agreement (that I have to sign and send back - it was > approved by ASF legal) that removes such requirements. > > I'll post it here once I sign it. > > geir > > > On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > > Hi, >> I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda >> DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member). I was >> trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could more >> easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project. It sounds >> like her hands are tied. After receiving this reply, I did verify that >> the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES >> wording. But, those specs led by other organizations do not. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA) >> mail: sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM >> http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/ >> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office) >> http://openjpa.apache.org/ >> >> ----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM ----- >> >> From: >> Linda DeMichiel <Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM> >> To: >> Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS >> Date: >> 08/14/2009 12:45 PM >> Subject: >> Re: NOTICE wording in spec >> Sent by: >> Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM >> >> >> >> Hi Kevin, >> >> I am bound to this wording and cannot change it. >> >> -Linda >> >> >> Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >>> Hi Linda, >>> Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just >>> yourself. Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's necessary. >>> >>> Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the >>> >> NOTICE >> >>> wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec. It's been causing problems with >>> Apache... >>> >>> Current wording: >>> >>> (iii)includes the following notice: >>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed >>> >> under >> >>> the Java Community Process >>> (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only. >>> >> The >> >>> code is not compatible with >>> any specification of the JCP." >>> >>> The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only." is >>> what Apache doesn't like. We've been trying to create interim Milestone >>> >> >> releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or >>> OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2. But, any release (even a milestone release) has >>> >> certain >> >>> requirements. Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha, milestone, >>> >> >> or GA release. A release is a release. And, they don't like to have a >>> release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only". Makes >>> >> Apache >> >>> sound more like a "toy" than for real production. And, I agree that a >>> milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what we >>> have to deal with. >>> >>> So, I would like to modify the wording as such: >>> >>> (iii)includes the following notice: >>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed >>> >> under >> >>> the Java Community Process >>> (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP." >>> >>> Doable? Or, are you bound to some certain wording? I looked at >>> BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines. But, >>> maybe that's not a fair comparison... :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Kevin >>> >> >> >> >
This is a non-issue. We have discussed this with sun separately, and have established an agreement (that I have to sign and send back - it was approved by ASF legal) that removes such requirements. I'll post it here once I sign it. geir On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: > Hi, > I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda > DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member). I was > trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could > more > easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project. It > sounds > like her hands are tied. After receiving this reply, I did verify > that > the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES > wording. But, those specs led by other organizations do not. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA) > mail: sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM > http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/ > phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office) > http://openjpa.apache.org/ > > ----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM > ----- > > From: > Linda DeMichiel <Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM> > To: > Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS > Date: > 08/14/2009 12:45 PM > Subject: > Re: NOTICE wording in spec > Sent by: > Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM > > > > Hi Kevin, > > I am bound to this wording and cannot change it. > > -Linda > > > Kevin Sutter wrote: >> Hi Linda, >> Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just >> yourself. Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's >> necessary. >> >> Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the > NOTICE >> wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec. It's been causing problems >> with >> Apache... >> >> Current wording: >> >> (iii)includes the following notice: >> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed > under >> the Java Community Process >> (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only. > The >> code is not compatible with >> any specification of the JCP." >> >> The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only." >> is >> what Apache doesn't like. We've been trying to create interim >> Milestone > >> releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or >> OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2. But, any release (even a milestone release) has > certain >> requirements. Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha, >> milestone, > >> or GA release. A release is a release. And, they don't like to >> have a >> release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only". Makes > Apache >> sound more like a "toy" than for real production. And, I agree >> that a >> milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what >> we >> have to deal with. >> >> So, I would like to modify the wording as such: >> >> (iii)includes the following notice: >> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed > under >> the Java Community Process >> (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP." >> >> Doable? Or, are you bound to some certain wording? I looked at >> BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines. >> But, >> maybe that's not a fair comparison... :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Kevin > >
Hi, I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member). I was trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could more easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project. It sounds like her hands are tied. After receiving this reply, I did verify that the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES wording. But, those specs led by other organizations do not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA) mail: sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/ phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office) http://openjpa.apache.org/ ----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM ----- From: Linda DeMichiel <Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM> To: Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS Date: 08/14/2009 12:45 PM Subject: Re: NOTICE wording in spec Sent by: Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM Hi Kevin, I am bound to this wording and cannot change it. -Linda Kevin Sutter wrote: > Hi Linda, > Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just > yourself. Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's necessary. > > Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the NOTICE > wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec. It's been causing problems with > Apache... > > Current wording: > > (iii)includes the following notice: > "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed under > the Java Community Process > (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The > code is not compatible with > any specification of the JCP." > > The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only." is > what Apache doesn't like. We've been trying to create interim Milestone > releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or > OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2. But, any release (even a milestone release) has certain > requirements. Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha, milestone, > or GA release. A release is a release. And, they don't like to have a > release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only". Makes Apache > sound more like a "toy" than for real production. And, I agree that a > milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what we > have to deal with. > > So, I would like to modify the wording as such: > > (iii)includes the following notice: > "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed under > the Java Community Process > (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP." > > Doable? Or, are you bound to some certain wording? I looked at > BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines. But, > maybe that's not a fair comparison... :-) > > Thanks, > Kevin
Dan, At Apache Felix, we are gearing up for bringing our framework and various service implementations into compliance with the OSGi R4.2 specifications. A major stumbling block in doing so is lack of access to the R4.2 TCK for committers. The OSGi Alliance has offered TCK access to Apache in the past, but it was never executed because we were waiting for changes to the terms of confidentiality in the license to reflect those offered subsequently for the JSR 291 TCK. If we could bring these two into alignment, then hopefully we could get this executed within Apache and get the Felix team working on compliance at full steam. Thanks. -> richard
+1 Even if the JCP's TCK were current, I'd say it would be better to obtain the TCK from OSGi than from the JCP. Assuming that there is a license that needs to be signed by an Apache representative, I'd recommend that you send the proposed license for review. If there's no NDA terms, I'd send it to legal@, and if there are any questionable terms, legal-internal@ for review. Geir, any advice as to who is empowered to sign the agreement? Craig On Aug 5, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Given your knowledge of the space, makes sense to me > > > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:06 AM, "Richard S. Hall" > <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote: > >> The issue here is we don't want the JSR 291 TCK, because it is for >> OSGi R4.01 (I think). We want the TCK for coming OSGi R4.2 release, >> which did not go through the JCP. >> >> So, if it is okay for me to make this request on behalf of Apache, >> then I will do so. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -> richard >> >> On 8/5/09 8:25, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> No. >>> >>> We've gotten at least one TCK (something from BEA a while ago) >>> that had no such silliness, IIRC. >>> >>> geir >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: >>> >>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>>> I think that you'd be fine to do it :) >>>>> >>>>> That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, >>>>> under JCP terms? >>>>> >>>>> geir >>>> Aren't the JCP terms "Sun Confidential"? >>>> >>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers >>>>>> access to the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one >>>>>> time for Apache to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was >>>>>> never fully pursued because some of the terms of the agreement >>>>>> didn't seem so great and at the same time the OSGi Alliance >>>>>> offered better terms for access to the JSR 291 TCK, which is >>>>>> essentially the same code. >>>>>> >>>>>> I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the >>>>>> same terms and got a positive initial response, but it never >>>>>> really went anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our >>>>>> plates. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if >>>>>> I could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more >>>>>> official request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this >>>>>> something I can do myself or is there someone in particular >>>>>> within Apache who should handle this? >>>>>> >>>>>> -> richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Geir, Ahh... yes, there are some JCP members that are reasonable :-) Changing topics slightly..... what documents in our svn foundation repo covers our agreement with Sun to grant committers access to the JEE TCK? Would it be possible for me to share this document with my legal team here at IBM? Bill Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > No. > > We've gotten at least one TCK (something from BEA a while ago) that > had no such silliness, IIRC. > > geir > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> I think that you'd be fine to do it :) >>> >>> That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, under >>> JCP terms? >>> >>> geir >> Aren't the JCP terms "Sun Confidential"? >> >> Bill >>> >>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >>> >>>> This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. >>>> >>>> The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers access >>>> to the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one time for >>>> Apache to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was never fully >>>> pursued because some of the terms of the agreement didn't seem so >>>> great and at the same time the OSGi Alliance offered better terms >>>> for access to the JSR 291 TCK, which is essentially the same code. >>>> >>>> I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same >>>> terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really went >>>> anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. >>>> >>>> Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if I >>>> could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more official >>>> request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this something I can >>>> do myself or is there someone in particular within Apache who >>>> should handle this? >>>> >>>> -> richard >>> >>> >> > >
Given your knowledge of the space, makes sense to me On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:06 AM, "Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote: > The issue here is we don't want the JSR 291 TCK, because it is for > OSGi R4.01 (I think). We want the TCK for coming OSGi R4.2 release, > which did not go through the JCP. > > So, if it is okay for me to make this request on behalf of Apache, > then I will do so. > > Thanks. > > -> richard > > On 8/5/09 8:25, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> No. >> >> We've gotten at least one TCK (something from BEA a while ago) that >> had no such silliness, IIRC. >> >> geir >> >> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: >> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>> I think that you'd be fine to do it :) >>>> >>>> That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, >>>> under JCP terms? >>>> >>>> geir >>> Aren't the JCP terms "Sun Confidential"? >>> >>> Bill >>>> >>>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. >>>>> >>>>> The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers >>>>> access to the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one >>>>> time for Apache to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was >>>>> never fully pursued because some of the terms of the agreement >>>>> didn't seem so great and at the same time the OSGi Alliance >>>>> offered better terms for access to the JSR 291 TCK, which is >>>>> essentially the same code. >>>>> >>>>> I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same >>>>> terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really >>>>> went anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. >>>>> >>>>> Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if >>>>> I could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more >>>>> official request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this >>>>> something I can do myself or is there someone in particular >>>>> within Apache who should handle this? >>>>> >>>>> -> richard >>>> >>>> >>> >>
The issue here is we don't want the JSR 291 TCK, because it is for OSGi R4.01 (I think). We want the TCK for coming OSGi R4.2 release, which did not go through the JCP. So, if it is okay for me to make this request on behalf of Apache, then I will do so. Thanks. -> richard On 8/5/09 8:25, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > No. > > We've gotten at least one TCK (something from BEA a while ago) that > had no such silliness, IIRC. > > geir > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> I think that you'd be fine to do it :) >>> >>> That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, under >>> JCP terms? >>> >>> geir >> Aren't the JCP terms "Sun Confidential"? >> >> Bill >>> >>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >>> >>>> This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. >>>> >>>> The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers access >>>> to the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one time for >>>> Apache to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was never fully >>>> pursued because some of the terms of the agreement didn't seem so >>>> great and at the same time the OSGi Alliance offered better terms >>>> for access to the JSR 291 TCK, which is essentially the same code. >>>> >>>> I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same >>>> terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really went >>>> anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. >>>> >>>> Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if I >>>> could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more official >>>> request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this something I can >>>> do myself or is there someone in particular within Apache who >>>> should handle this? >>>> >>>> -> richard >>> >>> >> >
No. We've gotten at least one TCK (something from BEA a while ago) that had no such silliness, IIRC. geir On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> I think that you'd be fine to do it :) >> >> That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, under >> JCP terms? >> >> geir > Aren't the JCP terms "Sun Confidential"? > > Bill >> >> On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >> >>> This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. >>> >>> The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers access >>> to the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one time for >>> Apache to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was never fully >>> pursued because some of the terms of the agreement didn't seem so >>> great and at the same time the OSGi Alliance offered better terms >>> for access to the JSR 291 TCK, which is essentially the same code. >>> >>> I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same >>> terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really >>> went anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. >>> >>> Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if I >>> could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more >>> official request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this >>> something I can do myself or is there someone in particular within >>> Apache who should handle this? >>> >>> -> richard >> >> >
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > I think that you'd be fine to do it :) > > That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, under > JCP terms? > > geir Aren't the JCP terms "Sun Confidential"? Bill > > On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > >> This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. >> >> The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers access to >> the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one time for Apache to >> execute. This was quite a while ago, but was never fully pursued >> because some of the terms of the agreement didn't seem so great and >> at the same time the OSGi Alliance offered better terms for access to >> the JSR 291 TCK, which is essentially the same code. >> >> I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same >> terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really went >> anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. >> >> Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if I >> could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more official >> request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this something I can do >> myself or is there someone in particular within Apache who should >> handle this? >> >> -> richard > >
I think that you'd be fine to do it :) That said, we should also be able to get the TCK via the JCP, under JCP terms? geir On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. > > The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers access to > the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one time for Apache > to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was never fully pursued > because some of the terms of the agreement didn't seem so great and > at the same time the OSGi Alliance offered better terms for access > to the JSR 291 TCK, which is essentially the same code. > > I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same > terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really went > anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. > > Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if I > could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more official > request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this something I can do > myself or is there someone in particular within Apache who should > handle this? > > -> richard
This is not a JCP question, but it deals with similar issues. The OSGi Alliance is/was willing to give Apache committers access to the OSGi TCK and even provided an agreement at one time for Apache to execute. This was quite a while ago, but was never fully pursued because some of the terms of the agreement didn't seem so great and at the same time the OSGi Alliance offered better terms for access to the JSR 291 TCK, which is essentially the same code. I put in a request to the OSGi Alliance to offer Apache the same terms and got a positive initial response, but it never really went anywhere and we all got busy and it fell off of our plates. Now the OSGi R4.2 spec is coming out and I would like to see if I could get this moving again. I would like to put in a more official request to the OSGi Alliance from Apache. Is this something I can do myself or is there someone in particular within Apache who should handle this? -> richard
On Thu July 30 2009 9:35:45 am Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > On Tue July 14 2009 10:03:30 pm Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Tue July 14 2009 7:58:24 am Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >>> We now have it. Who wants it? > >>> > >>> geir > >> > >> Did we get the JAX-WS 2.1 and JAX-RS 2.1 TCK's as well? > > > > Of course I meant JAX-RS 1.1, not 2.1. > > We have WS 2.1 (in your dir), and have requested RS 1.1 OK. I really screwed up. JAX-WS 2.2 and JAX-RS 1.1. We are already compliant with JAX-WS 2.1. We've had that TCK for a while. :-) -- Daniel Kulp dkulp@apache.org http://www.dankulp.com/blog
On Jul 30, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Tue July 14 2009 10:03:30 pm Daniel Kulp wrote: >>> On Tue July 14 2009 7:58:24 am Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>>> We now have it. Who wants it? >>>> >>>> geir >>> >>> Did we get the JAX-WS 2.1 and JAX-RS 2.1 TCK's as well? >> >> Of course I meant JAX-RS 1.1, not 2.1. > > We have WS 2.1 (in your dir), and have requested RS 1.1 RS 1.1 TCK isn't yet complete > > >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Kulp >> dkulp@apache.org >> http://www.dankulp.com/blog >
On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > On Tue July 14 2009 10:03:30 pm Daniel Kulp wrote: >> On Tue July 14 2009 7:58:24 am Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> We now have it. Who wants it? >>> >>> geir >> >> Did we get the JAX-WS 2.1 and JAX-RS 2.1 TCK's as well? > > Of course I meant JAX-RS 1.1, not 2.1. We have WS 2.1 (in your dir), and have requested RS 1.1 > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dkulp@apache.org > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> We now have it. Who wants it? > > Yes please. in your dir > > Also, could I have the jaspi (jsr 196) tck as well. > done > Thanks, > > Mark
in your dir On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> We now have it. Who wants it? > > Cool. I'll take one... > > --kevan
in your dir On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:53 AM, David Blevins wrote: > Don't think anyone's gotten the TCK files yet. > > I'll be on IRC all day and week. > > -David > > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:57 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> Oh and... Thank you, Geir! >> >> On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:54 PM, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> me me me! >>> >>> /me raises hand and flails it about >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> We now have it. Who wants it? >>>> >>>> geir >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
ack... will do tonight On Jul 28, 2009, at 11:53 AM, David Blevins wrote: > Don't think anyone's gotten the TCK files yet. > > I'll be on IRC all day and week. > > -David > > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:57 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> Oh and... Thank you, Geir! >> >> On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:54 PM, David Blevins wrote: >> >>> me me me! >>> >>> /me raises hand and flails it about >>> >>> On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> We now have it. Who wants it? >>>> >>>> geir >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >