james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Spring-integration status (Was: svn commit: r472482 - /james/server/trunk/STATUS)
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:40:38 GMT
On 11/8/06, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > On 11/8/06, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> >> I see that you marked JAMES-665 as Fixed.
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-665
> >>
> >> Shouldn't we include something in our distribution to declare it fixed?
> >
> > I don't get your question, sorry. What do you mean with "distribution"?
> I mean adding it in trunk and make sure that an "ant dist" create also
> the spring stuff and maybe a spring-ready package.
> The spring wired application could probably be used to debug the
> application without using remote debugging (running phoenix inside the
> IDE is much more complex than running spring).

What a waste... ;-) ... but, yes. :-)

> Anyway I think we should mark the issue as open (in-progress), because
> "fixed in 2.3.0" is misleading.

I would rather open new, more specific JIRAs for it (add ant, create
spring-config, integrate into trunk)

> Our 2.3.0 does not work with spring,
> even if your prototype could be adapted to work with 2.3.0.

The prototype is based in james2.3.0.jar. Never tried with TRUNK,
because it is a moving target (in terms of assembly.xml).

> Ok, you're active on it! Then most thing I wrote does not apply ;-)
> So we should updated the "Status:" line in the STATUS file to "active,
> completed prototype, in-progress integration" or something similar.

Already thought about that but this complicates the STATUS file.

> >> We should avoid to mantain 2 "assembly" files (phoenix + spring) and
> >> maybe we should better create one from the other, or create a common
> >> source for both.
> >
> > There was some trial and error and trick to make the spring-config
> > fit. But yes, it would be cool to have something like that. I will
> > have a check.
> >
> >  Bernd
> Yes, I remember you told this, and I had a look at the beans
> configuration but I have not spotted the "tricks".

Mainly the order of components is significant.
Sometimes it was neccessary to add class names to bean names in
addition to the simple names, like in
bean name="connections, org.apache.james.services.JamesConnectionManager"
But I have to revisit this because the whole lifecycling was completed

> So we'll wait for further news from you in the next weeks. Thank you for
> the update.

You are welcome :-)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message