Ah, looks nice. So it's not hard to plug in your own UI for creating a project in an "alternate" framework. Yeah, I think this would be great! Rich
Glauber Adriano Reis wrote: > Rich, > > Yes, I mean building a Beehive Webproject inside NetBeans 5.0 much like > it going to be with struts and JSF. For a nb Web Project there is a > possibility > of "registering" frameworks, there is inicial support for JSF and > Struts. I > think it would be cool having Beehive as another option for web > framework. > > http://web.netbeans.org/extensionSupport/ExtensionSupportUISpec.html > http://web.netbeans.org/struts/struts-support-ui-spec.html > > > Glauber Adriano > > > > Rich Feit wrote: > >> I forgot to mention under #2 that having some sort of Beehive support in >> NetBeans would be great. This means support for building a Beehive >> project? >> >> Rich Feit wrote: >> >> >>> I changed the subject line here, just so this doesn't get lost among >>> the >>> discussion of netui-blank. Here's my take on these three questions: >>> >>> 1. I don't think maven-ized samples would be bundled with v1. Adam >>> Jenkins is contributing the maven plugin (which is much-needed), but I >>> think that a maven option wouldn't be worked into the distribution >>> until v1.1 (or whatever the next point release is). That's just my >>> guess. The reason for this can be found in my answer to #3. :) It >>> does look like Eddie is working on getting our JARs out on the >>> repository in time for v1: >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-user/200509.mbox/[EMAIL >>> PROTECTED] >>> >>> . >>> >>> 2. I agree that the loss of momentum on Pollinate is disappointing, >>> although I'm still really hopeful that something will appear under >>> Eclipse eventually. I agree with Adam's statement that this is a >>> missing piece which would really help carry Beehive forward (by making >>> it more accessible and also digestible by management types). A >>> discussion about collaboration with the Pollinate project is probably >>> something we should have after v1 goes out. >>> >>> 3. v1. Yes, I would be shocked if we didn't release it this week. >>> This >>> project model issue is the only one we need to resolve, as far as I >>> know, and so far everyone's been supportive of it. >>> >>> Rich >>> >>> >>> Glauber Adriano Reis wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I'm happy now, the layout makes its way smothly into NetBeans when you >>>> import it as an >>>> external web project. >>>> I've got 3 questions: >>>> 1 - would maven-ized samples be bundled with V1? If so, I read in the >>>> mailing list >>>> about the plugin(I was working on such a thing as well but stoped >>>> since it had >>>> been already developed) but I cannot find the plugin or anything >>>> mentioning it in JIRA. >>>> >>>> 2 - Such a pity that Pollinate project is dead. What you guys think? >>>> ...the latest >>>> NeBeans version to be released (v5) will have struts support. I think >>>> it would be cool >>>> having some sort of minimal beehive support as well, I'd be very glad >>>> working on it (since I probably >>>> wont use WebLogic 9 eclipse plugins) but want you opinion. >>>> >>>> 3 - Is Beehive V1 due out this week? I'm pretty much anxious... :) >>>> >>>> >>>> Glauber Adriano >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> All-- >>>>> >>>>> I've got a patch ready which will reorganize the >>>>> <dist-root>/samples/netui-blank web project from a source-in model >>>>> like: >>>>> >>>>> fooWeb/ >>>>> Controller.java >>>>> index.jsp >>>>> WEB-INF/ >>>>> web.xml >>>>> src/ >>>>> build.xml >>>>> build.properties >>>>> Foo.java >>>>> >>>>> to a source-peer model like: >>>>> >>>>> fooWeb/ >>>>> build.xml >>>>> build.properties >>>>> src/ >>>>> Foo.java >>>>> web/ >>>>> index.jsp >>>>> Controller.java >>>>> WEB-INF/ >>>>> web.xml >>>>> >>>>> This brings the OOTB NetUI project model in-line with that prescribed >>>>> by Tomcat and used in many projects. It's also what Adriano >>>>> suggested >>>>> and used for his NetBeans project. >>>>> >>>>> We're getting in the last days before 1.0 here, so we need to do >>>>> two things: >>>>> >>>>> 1) agree that this is the right thing to do >>>>> 2) review the patch in this bug -- >>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-921 >>>>> >>>>> Please do both; if you disagree with (1), say so! :) >>>>> >>>>> Once / if we agree on this, I'll commit it and take a couple of hours >>>>> to rework some documentation. And, hopefully we can branch and ship >>>>> 1.0. :) >>>>> >>>>> Eddie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Sounds great! Leaving netui-samples and netui-jsf seems like the >>>>>> right >>>>>> thing to hold off for 1.1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Awesome. I'll make this change for netui-blank but will leave >>>>>>> netui-jsf and netui-samples for the sake of stability. We can fix >>>>>>> those for Beehive 1.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would switch the default NetUI project model to something that >>>>>>> looks like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-5.0-doc/appdev/source.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> which is basically: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fooWebProject/ >>>>>>> web/ >>>>>>> src/ >>>>>>> build.xml >>>>>>> build.properties >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with a build that works like samples/petstoreWeb. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any other thoughts about doing this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I definitely agree on #2 (if I'm understanding you correctly) -- I >>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>> it should support the Tomcat model you're describing. >>>>>>>> Originally I'd >>>>>>>> suggested supporting both because netui-blank is in the old >>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>> model, so I assumed that this is the only one we would be >>>>>>>> supporting. >>>>>>>> So I support making this change... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) yes, this simply adds a convenience target to >>>>>>>>> beehive-imports.xml. >>>>>>>>> It doesn't attempt to fix the validation problem discussed >>>>>>>>> earlier -- >>>>>>>>> depending on how it's fixed, that might be an SVN-side issue with >>>>>>>>> building the distribution. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) I agree that we are moving away from the WEB-INF/src project >>>>>>>>> model >>>>>>>>> and onto the Tomcat model where web/ and src/ are peers. This >>>>>>>>> target >>>>>>>>> certainly could support both models, but it's just easier to >>>>>>>>> have it >>>>>>>>> support the one Tomcat prescribes that is widely used and is >>>>>>>>> easily >>>>>>>>> supported in various IDEs. We can document how to setup a >>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>> with source-in-webapp. If there was enough interest, we could >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> this change now...it only affects netui-samples, netui-blank, and >>>>>>>>> netui-jsf. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rich Feit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I see - so this isn't the complex part of the change we were >>>>>>>>>> talking >>>>>>>>>> about. This is simply adding an ant target to >>>>>>>>>> beehive-imports.xml. It >>>>>>>>>> seems like a good addition, but one question I have is whether >>>>>>>>>> we should >>>>>>>>>> be supporting different project models with something like >>>>>>>>>> this. Seems >>>>>>>>>> like we're moving away from a source-under-web-content model. >>>>>>>>>> What do >>>>>>>>>> you think? >>>>>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the Ant that will do this; it patches >>>>>>>>>>> trunk/user/beehive-imports.xml and can be run as: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which will prompt for a destination directory for the >>>>>>>>>>> project. Or, it >>>>>>>>>>> can be run like: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp -Dwebapp.dir >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which will skp the prompt since "webapp.dir" has already been >>>>>>>>>>> provided. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think this will be *really* useful and less error-prone >>>>>>>>>>> than the >>>>>>>>>>> alternative. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> <target name="new.netui.webapp" >>>>>>>>>>> description="Create >>>>>>>>>>> a new NetUI-enabled Beehive webapp"> >>>>>>>>>>> <input message="Provide a fully-qualified web project path:" >>>>>>>>>>> addproperty="webapp.dir"/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <copy todir="${webapp.dir}"> >>>>>>>>>>> <fileset dir="${basedir}/samples/netui-blank"> >>>>>>>>>>> <include name="**/*"/> >>>>>>>>>>> </fileset> >>>>>>>>>>> </copy> >>>>>>>>>>> <deploy-netui webappDir="${webapp.dir}"/> >>>>>>>>>>> <echo>Created a NetUI-enabled in ${webapp.dir}</echo> >>>>>>>>>>> </target> >>>>>>>>>>> </snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gotcha. As far as the docs, I've got a placeholder in the >>>>>>>>>>>> netui/projects.xml doc already that describes the cp / ant -f >>>>>>>>>>>> step. >>>>>>>>>>>> So, that part is easy. ;) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Patch forthcoming... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, I just meant we should take a week to have people play >>>>>>>>>>>>> with it >>>>>>>>>>>>> if we >>>>>>>>>>>>> put it in for 1.0, that's all. I think we'd want to get it >>>>>>>>>>>>> into the >>>>>>>>>>>>> docs, too, especially where there are instructions for >>>>>>>>>>>>> copying >>>>>>>>>>>>> netui-blank, etc. What do you think about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd definitely take a look at the diff, though, even if it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>> we hold until v1.1. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah -- I don't think it would take a week (probably just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of hours), but it's a little different than how we do things >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we need to support two scenarios: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - create a new webapp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - inject the runtime files (JARs / resources) into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> samples >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've got the latter and could easily add the former. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, we'll get very little test mileage on it in the near >>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can take a crack at it and see what you think of the diff... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely, this would be a great thing to have. I have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> script >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does exactly this -- in retrospect, this should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an ant target. I think it's something that we should do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless we want to delay the release for a week or so... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's complicated. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We really need a target that can "seed" a Beehive webapp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of the validation config files, runtime JARs, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NetUI URL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addressable resources. Today, this is done using a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> command like: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cp -rf samples/netui-blank <project-dir> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ant -f ant/beehive-runtime.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy.beehive.webapp.runtime >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dwebapp.dir=<project-dir> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, for example, you just do the latter, you'll end up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> webapp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has the runtime but no web.xml or validation config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files. And, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's kind of bad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would be *very* nice to have a target that just does: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.beehive.webapp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dproject.dir=... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It could even prompt for the project.dir -- kind of like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wizard in Ant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could do this for 1.0, but it's not an insignificant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's *definitely* something we need for 1.1... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, if it's complicated at all, I agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl Olander wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to doing the real fix post 1.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it back...this isn't a straightforward thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately because it affects the Ant used to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in both the distribution and SVN builds. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be hard to change it, but if we're going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should add the beehive-netui-validator-config.xml file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding web.xml) to those as well... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree (now) having them checked in is the right thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to tackle the bigger problem of copying all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config files. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, I'd rather ship 1.0 and fix that later. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I certainly don't have an objection to that... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn't *have* to happen now, but doing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we're consistent. So, I'm going to go ahead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting the compiler change in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Feit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't started it -- it doesn't seem like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has to go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into v1, right? Just checking. I did update the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked-in files to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the right version -- this is just the longer-term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ensure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this doesn't happen again... :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie O'Neil wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you started fixing BEEHIVE-914 yet? If not, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll take that one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
