Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip/
The way the JVM classloading mechanism is designed (well, the code
verifier actually) is that you cannot have two classes with
the same
name and package in the same classloading hierarchy.
So, for example, suppose you have the following
Tim Larson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 07:05:01AM +, Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:41:15PM +, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 5 Mar 2004, at 21:10, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Package:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I would do
http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
so that in the future there is an algorithmical way to get to the
version.
Hehe, looks like RDF really has infected your mind ;-)
But I like this notation, which makes definition, binding, etc children
of
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I would do
http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
so that in the future there is an algorithmical way to get to the
version.
Hehe, looks like RDF really has infected your mind ;-)
good eye :-)
But I like this notation, which makes
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
...
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for forms only - as Vadim pointed out, it's Cocoon is
obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a little
chat on IRC and agreed on
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
...
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for forms only - as Vadim pointed out, it's Cocoon is
obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
little
On 05 Mar 2004, at 16:26, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Do we have a consensus now? Please chime in on IRC (somebody will have
to count votes then), or here :-)
+1
/Steven
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java XMLAn Orixo
Don't know if my vote counts, just in case: +1
Helma
-Original Message-
From: Steven Noels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 05 March 2004 17:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SUMMARY] From Woody to Cocoon Forms 1.0
On 05 Mar 2004, at 16:26, Vadim Gritsenko wrote
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
...
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for forms only - as Vadim pointed out, it's Cocoon is
obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand,
Le Vendredi, 5 mars 2004, à 17:16 Europe/Zurich,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Don't know if my vote counts, just in case: +1
Thanks!
Only votes from committers are officially counted but we always
appreciate input from everybody.
-Bertrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't know if my vote counts, just in case: +1
Helma
Technically, the vote of a non-committer isn't binding, but your
opinion (and anyone like you) is important and definitely counts.
Always feel free to pipe in.
Geoff
Marc Portier mpo at outerthought.org writes:
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
Block Name: cforms
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
Namespace:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Marc Portier mpo at outerthought.org writes:
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
Block Name: cforms
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Marc Portier mpo at outerthought.org writes:
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim, Tim, Bertrand, and Rolf) had a
little chat on IRC and agreed on the following:
Block Title: Cocoon Forms, or Cocoon Forms 1.0
Block Name: cforms
Package:
Marc Portier wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for forms only - as Vadim pointed out, it's Cocoon is
obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where we stands for Vadim,
Geoff Howard wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't know if my vote counts, just in case: +1
Helma
Technically, the vote of a non-committer isn't binding, but your
opinion (and anyone like you) is important and definitely counts.
Always feel free to pipe in.
Geoff
+1
I have been
Marc Portier wrote:
another argument for having [cforms] from my side was that you could
never confuse it with the known english word 'form' that could mean an
HTML form, a paper-form, a whatever formalism or whatnot... in
discussions on these lists, and thus possibly introducing confusion
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Marc Portier wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for forms only - as Vadim pointed out, it's Cocoon is
obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Marc Portier wrote:
another argument for having [cforms] from my side was that you could
never confuse it with the known english word 'form' that could mean an
HTML form, a paper-form, a whatever formalism or whatnot... in
On 05.03.2004 19:49, Tim Larson wrote:
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
here I would go forms instead. package naming is where the estate
really is, where class collissions might happen.
I understand how this seems like a good place for the battleground,
but to introduce a new winner it
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Marc Portier wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
+1 'cforms' instead of just 'forms'
I'm +1 for forms only - as Vadim pointed out, it's Cocoon is
obvious because it's within the Cocoon CVS.
WDOT?
Ok, we (where
Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
here I would go forms instead. package naming is where the estate
really is, where class collissions might happen.
I understand how this seems like a good place for the
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 05.03.2004 19:49, Tim Larson wrote:
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
here I would go forms instead. package naming is where the estate
really is, where class collissions might happen.
I understand how this seems like a good place for the battleground,
but to
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I would do
http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
Stefano, how could you???!!!
http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/1.0#definition
;-P
Vadim
On 5 Mar 2004, at 21:10, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
here I would go forms instead. package naming is where the estate
really is, where class collissions might happen.
I
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
I would do
http://apache.org/cocoon/cforms/1.0#definition
Stefano, how could you???!!!
http://apache.org/cocoon/forms/1.0#definition
yeah right, gosh, you got me there ;-)
--
Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:41:15PM +, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 5 Mar 2004, at 21:10, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Package: org.apache.cocoon.cforms
here I would go forms instead. package naming is where
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 07:05:01AM +, Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:41:15PM +, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 5 Mar 2004, at 21:10, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:24:57PM -0500, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Package:
28 matches
Mail list logo
