On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:55, Vincent Massol wrote:
1/ Now that we are in 2002, do we need to change the text in all our
license files to be : Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The Apache Software
Foundation instead of Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software
Foundation ?
should change it to include
If Jakarta != java and/or Jakarta != server, (which appeared on this list a
few days ago, but I cant find the original mail)
then the mission statement is at odds with the project, which must at best
create bad karma and at worst it broadcasts a misleading message about the
project to the whole
Danny Angus wrote:
If Jakarta != java and/or Jakarta != server, (which appeared on this list a
few days ago, but I cant find the original mail)
then the mission statement is at odds with the project, which must at best
create bad karma and at worst it broadcasts a misleading message about the
Ted Husted wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
If Jakarta != java and/or Jakarta != server, (which appeared on this
list a
few days ago, but I cant find the original mail)
then the mission statement is at odds with the project, which must at
best
create bad karma and at worst it broadcasts a misleading
I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright
notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file.
This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should
happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file from
1999, you should
Ted Husted wrote:
I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright
notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file.
This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should
happen year-round. So, as Peter said, if you revise a source file
On 9 Jan 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Date: 09 Jan 2002 00:07:00 -0500
From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general at jakarta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Code conventions
It's only two little lines extra to include the {}'s,
on 1/9/02 4:27 AM, Ceki Gulcu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
Here is a patch jakarta-site2/xdocs/site/mail.xml, the source for the
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail.html page.
The patch contains a few corrections, a sligt re-organisation and some
stylistic changes. I think it
on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright
notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file.
This will happen most often in the early part of a year, but should
happen
Yes, it's on my list.
Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright
notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file.
This will happen most
Done. I hope the actual patch contains less typos than
my previous mail describing the patch. :-)
--- Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 1/9/02 4:27 AM, Ceki Gulcu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
Here is a patch jakarta-site2/xdocs/site/mail.xml,
the source for the
Tim Vernum wrote:
It's only two little lines extra to include the {}'s,
Yeah, but those two lines will make my code run slower.
Don't you know?
The less space your source code takes, the less space
your class file will take.
And smaller classes run faster.
Well, I could be wrong,
LOL!
Are you taking these guys seriously?
=;o)
Have fun,
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Alonso Vega [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:31 PM
To: Jakarta General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Code conventions
Tim Vernum wrote:
snip/
:)
Someone told me if you use a really small font like courier 6pt then
you don't even need an optimizing compiler.
Thanks to this conversation, I finally did think of a good reason to
use
braces on a separate line (which I detest, but that's just me) -- if
+1
your
manager judges
Tim Vernum wrote:
It's only two little lines extra to include the {}'s,
Yeah, but those two lines will make my code run slower.
Don't you know?
The less space your source code takes, the less space
your class file will take.
And smaller classes run faster.
Well, I could be
On Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at 03:34 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
What about if you set the font size really small? LOL
-Andy
Perhaps Microsoft just has their font size set really big. :)
-Kurt
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Hi folks,
what about micro-printed on-screen code, watched through glasses?
faster? or slower?
JAVA is a myst
Kurt Schrader wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at 03:34 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
What about if you set the font size really small? LOL
-Andy
Perhaps Microsoft
What about at leat a clue ([OT]) that this is completely out
of topic?
=;o)
(Yeah! I should have done this before myself.)
Have fun,
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: Armin Zeltner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:31 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject:
SHORT TERM PLAN
There's a proposed update to the mission page at
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mission2.html
It uses the language from our latest charter,
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/pmc/01-03-19-meeting-summary.html at 2.1
and also adds information about the Apache Software
On 1/9/02 7:42 AM, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
If Jakarta != java and/or Jakarta != server, (which appeared on this list a
few days ago, but I cant find the original mail)
then the mission statement is at odds with the project, which must at best
create bad karma
On 1/9/02 12:53 PM, Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 1/9/02 6:49 AM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
I think on a continuing basis, Committers should update the copyright
notice to include the current year whenever they update a source file.
This will
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a
file?
It is a legal requirement for the license to be valid.
I don't disagree with the suggestion - I mean, we need to do it - I am
just asking what makes it a rule
Geir,
I think the rule is so obvious once stated that no one is likely to disagree with it.
In a perfect world, we would vote on such a rule in order to adopt it formally.
However, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited resources and the Jakarta
tradition of lazy approval seems to
On 1/9/02 8:30 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a
file?
It is a legal requirement for the license to be valid.
Of course. What I am asking is what makes
On 1/9/02 8:38 PM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geir,
I think the rule is so obvious once stated that no one is likely to disagree
with it. In a perfect world, we would vote on such a rule in order to adopt it
formally. However, we don't live in a perfect world with unlimited
Personally,
While I don't have strong feeling about this, and a Mission statement is
what it is...
I don't know that commercial-quality is a positive thing these days.
Alternatively, I'd say high-quality. Its a stupid distinction I know
but I've used some duds that were supposedly
Pete,
Just a question. Maybe I missed this in the discussions. Every once
and a while the short license versus big license discussion goes
through here. Meaning the source code for some projects whether
correctly or incorrectly be convention uses a statement and short
reference to the license
Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:27:52 -0500
From: Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More abuse of coding
Production quality sounds MUCH better to me!
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:31 AM
To: general at jakarta
Subject: Re: Mission ...
Personally,
While I don't have strong feeling
Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession.
Agreed.
The problem with
public void setSomething(Object something){
this.something = something;
}
is
public void
I am not a lawyer and the following is yet another one of my heretical POVs.
Legally speaking the copyright notice is not even required in each source file as long
as the whole work can be unequivocally attributed to their rightful owners through
other means.
Example 1) In my home I don't
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:45, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 1/9/02 8:30 PM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Here's a quick question - what makes that a rule? Ted putting it into a
file?
It is a legal requirement for the license to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:36, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Just a question. Maybe I missed this in the discussions. Every once
and a while the short license versus big license discussion goes
through here. Meaning the source code for some projects whether
correctly or incorrectly be convention
At 07:07 PM 1/9/02 -0800, you wrote:
Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession.
Agreed.
The problem with
public void setSomething(Object something){
this.something
34 matches
Mail list logo
