+1 for removing circular dependencies.
Regards
Nandika
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I think if we are maintaining this shared library in Linux we should also
maintain it in Windows as well. AFAIK here we are having an inconsistency
which
+1 for removing circular dependencies as well as to make the Windows and
Linux systems sync.
Samisa...
Nandika Jayawardana wrote:
+1 for removing circular dependencies.
Regards
Nandika
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I think if we are
Hi,
I think if we are maintaining this shared library in Linux we should also
maintain it in Windows as well. AFAIK here we are having an inconsistency
which we can easily resolve. Also we shouldn't have circular dependencies
like the ones pointed out by Steven in our code. So we can either
Hi Steven,
Steven Nairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, is there any good reason for having libaxis2_http_common as a
separate library? Or should I create a Jira issue and attach a patch
to merge it with libaxis2_engine?
IIRC , we created libaxis2_http_common in order to separate out common
Hi Dinesh,
Dinesh Premalal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IIRC , we created libaxis2_http_common in order to separate out common
functions that is used by simple_axis_server, mod_axis2, http_sender
and http_reciever.
Is this library ever likely to exist in the Windows build? If so, the
