application later today, but
then it should be ready to commit.
-Ted.
Jaap van Hengstum wrote:
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 9:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Mav-user] PROPOSAL: Add Ted Husted as committer
It was also easy to modify FormProc to solve
Almost. I needed a patch applied to the FormProc CVS first. I'm now told
it's been applied, and I'll be able to check that one out and test it
this afternoon. Then I can post ours! yeah/
-Ted.
Kevin O'Neill wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 05:58, Ted Husted wrote:
Mike Moulton wrote:
Your
Jaap van Hengstum wrote:
Can I ask why you are using FormProc and not Commons Validator? Since I've never used it yet, I was wondering FormProc has advantages over Validator.
The focus of the Validator is on validating JavaBeans. an interesting
problem space, but it's not really what we need to
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 9:27 PM
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Mav-user] PROPOSAL: Add Ted Husted as committer
It was also easy to modify FormProc to solve the nasty problem of
redisplaying input. It already kept a list
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 05:58, Ted Husted wrote:
Mike Moulton wrote:
Your FormProc enhancements, coupled with opt-formproc sound very
promising. I look forward to using it.
There's another twist in there that you might like as well =;)
I'm going to make in an optional compile, but the
I have to agree with Ted on this one. It is a little longer, but much
clearer, when we use .opt.
- Original Message -
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Mav-user] PROPOSAL: Add Ted Husted as committer
Schnitzer, Jeff wrote:
FWIW, I'd like to see everything migrated over to net.sf.mav.*
eventually. It would be a pretty big PITA though. Not sure how
worthwhile it would be to move the core.
If there were interest, I'd be glad to volunteer for the grunt work, as
part of my right of passage =:)
Thanks for the votes of support =:0)
I have a patch pending with FormProc now that I would like to include in
our opt-formproc extension. I just left a note for Anthon Eden to see
how he felt about it. FormProc caches the original input, and the patch
exposes the list so controls can redisplay
Welcome Ted :-)
Your FormProc enhancements, coupled with opt-formproc sound very
promising. I look forward to using it.
Your packaging question is a good one, I don't think that has been
discussed in the past. Traditionally all new code was packaged under
'org.infohazard.maverick' simply
From: Mike Moulton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your packaging question is a good one, I don't think that has been
discussed in the past. Traditionally all new code was packaged under
'org.infohazard.maverick' simply because that is mavericks package.
However this has lead to consistency in
I think someone mentioned recently that it might be time for another
Maverick release. If nothing else, I've noticed some minor
inconsistencies in the JavaDocs. (I think the comments still reflect a
prior release.)
Perhaps we might consider a new Maverick release using the net.sf.mav
I propose adding Ted Husted as a committer to Maverick. His resume
precedes him; he's one of the leads of the Struts project and is the
author of _Struts in Action_. He has recently offered to contribute and
maintain an optional package which integrates Formproc with Maverick.
I believe Ted is
+1
-- mike
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Schnitzer, Jeff wrote:
I propose adding Ted Husted as a committer to Maverick. His resume
precedes him; he's one of the leads of the Struts project and is the
author of _Struts in Action_. He has recently offered to contribute
and
13 matches
Mail list logo
