Alex McLintock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there is any forum appropriate for that yet, and I can see
that some people (such as Pier above) isn't so keen on discussing it on the
existing mailing lists. :-)
It's not that I'm not keen, don't get me wrong, I just don't know anything
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Alex McLintock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there is any forum appropriate for that yet,
and I can see
that some people (such as Pier above) isn't so keen on
discussing it on the
existing mailing lists. :-)
[...]
I would be keen to see an @apache.org
Try in the tomcat-user list.
Un saludo,
Alex Fernández.
-Mensaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Enviado el: martes 30 de abril de 2002 19:35
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: strange behaviour with servlets
Before i had some problems to make Tomcat
ObjectBridge is one of the most interesting, powerful, and complete O/R
mapping projects out there. I would love to see it become a top level
Jakarta subproject, so here is my emphatic (but non-binding) +1!
-- jt
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 14:41, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose ObjectRelationalBridge
(http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/) as a top level subproject of
Jakarta.
For those not familiar with ObjectBridge it is arguably one of the most
advanced persistence layers available, commercial or otherwise. It is
here my (non-binding) +1
~Gerhard
PS: hmm curious if takes the jon hurdle ;-).
Sex... the pleasure is momentry, the position ridiculous,
and the expense damnable.
(Lord Chesterfield)
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:41
Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
on 4/30/02 11:11 AM, Gerhard Froehlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: hmm curious if takes the jon hurdle ;-).
+1.
The proposal and project clearly meet ALL of the requirements set out on the
newproject page.
I would really like to see some sort of commitment
Given the votes expressed so far by other jakarta commiters - I can
only vote +1.
This seems like a usefull tool ( I spent few years working on OODBs and
OQL ), with a modular design.
My only comment:
I would be much happier with a wider top-level project, where the
various db-related
on 4/30/02 12:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be much happier with a wider top-level project, where the
various db-related technologies could find the expertise and community
that is needed ( instead of ending up with 3-4 smaller projects ).
+1
However, one could
on 4/30/02 12:58 PM, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Costin:
I would be much happier with a wider top-level project, where the
various db-related technologies could find the expertise and community
that is needed ( instead of ending up with 3-4 smaller projects ).
I completely agree.
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 15:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the votes expressed so far by other jakarta commiters - I can
only vote +1.
You should put your name in the PMC section on the who we are page. I
know you're on the PMC but I can't remember who the 7th is.
This seems like a usefull
Quick! convert all your projects build.xml files to being controlled by
maven!
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/maven/
The faster we get a centralized build system in Jakarta the better off we
will all be.
Forget the days where you have to edit silly properties files to locate
dependency
Which are the relation between maven , gump and forrest?
They are alternative solutions, complimentary, or what?
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ignacio J. Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which are the relation between maven , gump and forrest?
They are alternative solutions, complimentary, or what?
Here is a mail I sent to CJAN guys on the subject:
From: Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:40, Michael Davey
I think both projects have nice advantages and features. Maven has good
documentation. Centipede is easier to setup and is a bit more advanced
in the way it generates documentation. Its a bit alpha but I think the
code generation stuff in centipede shows some promise. I can personally
vouch
From: Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quick! convert all your projects build.xml files to being controlled by
maven!
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/maven/
The faster we get a centralized build system in Jakarta the better off we
will all be.
Forget the days where you have
on 4/30/02 2:46 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Krysalis Centipede:
http://www.sf.net/projects/krysalis/
Site using Centipede:
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
You make the decision.
To me, the decision is simple:
Krysalis isn't our own dog food.
I would far rather see
From: Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 4/30/02 2:46 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Krysalis Centipede:
http://www.sf.net/projects/krysalis/
Site using Centipede:
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
You make the decision.
To me, the decision is simple:
[snip]
I think both projects have nice advantages and features. Maven has good
documentation. Centipede is easier to setup and is a bit more advanced
in the way it generates documentation. Its a bit alpha but I think the
I've had the opposite experience. The whole reason I got involved
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So why not just merge the good features of both projects together.
Alternatively if each project can deal with the descriptors for the other it doesnt
matter.
Use whichever you like one will end up be used more.
At which point take all the used
I have yet to be able to build Maven.
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 4/30/02 5:31 PM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have yet to be able to build Maven.
- Sam Ruby
echo maven.home=${user.home}/maven ~/build.properties
cvs co jakarta-turbine-maven
cd jakarta-turbine-maven
ant -f build-bootstrap.xml
Seems pretty easy to me.
-jon
--
To unsubscribe,
Jon Stevens wrote:
I have yet to be able to build Maven.
echo maven.home=${user.home}/maven ~/build.properties
cvs co jakarta-turbine-maven
cd jakarta-turbine-maven
ant -f build-bootstrap.xml
Seems pretty easy to me.
I'll believe it when I see it here...
[snip]
I think both projects have nice advantages and features. Maven has good
documentation. Centipede is easier to setup and is a bit more advanced
in the way it generates documentation. Its a bit alpha but I think the
I've had the opposite experience. The whole reason I got
Are you volunteering? So far all I've seen in this direction was FUD
tactics by Maven.
-Andy
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 19:47, Michael McCallum wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So why not just merge the good features of both projects together.
Alternatively if each
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 05:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I think both projects have nice advantages and features. Maven has good
documentation. Centipede is easier to setup and is a bit more advanced
in the way it generates documentation. Its a bit alpha but I think the
I've had
In truth I think thats a good idea. So since Maven is under Turbine and
really is a bit out of scope, how about moving it over to Krysalis and
combine it. I'd love to see a combined effort. Centipede's featureset
and modularity + maven's documentation and better names for things! Wow
that
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 19:09, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
In truth I think thats a good idea. So since Maven is under Turbine and
really is a bit out of scope, how about moving it over to Krysalis and
combine it.
How is a build system out of scope of Turbine. Isn't it up to a
subproject to
On 4/30/02 11:31 PM, John McNally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not know where to locate Turbine's original charter and I think it
is a good idea to try to follow it. Are these published somewhere or
should Turbine maintain it in its own documentation? However the scope
of a subproject is
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 20:38, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 4/30/02 11:31 PM, John McNally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not know where to locate Turbine's original charter and I think it
is a good idea to try to follow it. Are these published somewhere or
should Turbine maintain it in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday, 01 May, 2002 13:59, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Are you volunteering?
yes. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
On 5/1/02 12:28 AM, John McNally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 20:38, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 4/30/02 11:31 PM, John McNally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not know where to locate Turbine's original charter and I think it
is a good idea to try to follow it. Are these
I would like to propose ObjectRelationalBridge
(http://objectbridge.sourceforge.net/) as a top level subproject of
Jakarta.
+1
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH i. Gr.
Dipl.-Inform.
Rainer Klute E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
33 matches
Mail list logo
