@thomas:
maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource

regards,
gerhard



2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:

> @DeltaSpike?
> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <christ...@kaltepoth.de> a
> écrit :
>
> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this. That's
> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then. But
> the
> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately I've no
> > really good idea.
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > +1
> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> > >
> > > Any veto about such a change?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the project-name).
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > gerhard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > I found another case were something like
> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a better
> name:
> > > > >
> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
> > > PhaseListener {
> > > > > ... }
> > > > >
> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the
> > annotation
> > > > the
> > > > > same again?
> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something from
> the
> > > > Web...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans
> defined:
> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
> > > > > > HttpSession
> > > > > > ServletContext
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be confusing
> > because
> > > > > some
> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with @Web.
> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to keep
> > @Web
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> This is my summary:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> By following the discussion it seems to be seen as convenient vs
> > > > > >> inconvenient and the vote is kinda even. What I would like to
> see
> > is
> > > > > >> cohesion in Deltaspike overall. Either you use namespaces or you
> > > > don't.
> > > > > My
> > > > > >> point is basically that it feels more like a project-wide
> > decision.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> To summarize, when a spec or w/e is expected to introduce the
> same
> > > > > >> producer
> > > > > >> different strategies can be used. So either the strategy as a
> user
> > > is
> > > > to
> > > > > >> a)
> > > > > >> use the namespace and drop it when someone else provides it
> (i.e a
> > > > spec)
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> b) Trust Deltaspike to handle any conflicts.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> pros:
> > > > > >> - No conflicts or conflict management.
> > > > > >> - Users can use both variants for example if Deltaspike offers
> > > extras.
> > > > > >> Apparently already true for Servlet Module.
> > > > > >> - Abolishes the idea of transparent replacement with the
> argument
> > > that
> > > > > >> various enhancements might make it incompatible anyways.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> cons:
> > > > > >> - Must remove namespace when Deltaspike is superfluous. No
> > namespace
> > > > and
> > > > > >> automatic veto would make it more seamless.
> > > > > >> - More verbose and not as pretty to use.
> > > > > >> - Does not see incompatibly as a big problem. Reasoning is:  End
> > > user
> > > > > must
> > > > > >> test application behavior after upgrade anyway and problems
> should
> > > be
> > > > > >> minor.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Btw i'm +0
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 4 January 2014 17:09, Gerhard Petracek <
> > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > to summarize it:
> > > > > >> > so far we haven't seen a real blocker for dropping the
> > qualifier.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > regards,
> > > > > >> > gerhard
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > never said it was blocking, just it shouldn't be done
> blindly
> > > and
> > > > > docs
> > > > > >> > > should be very explicit on it and potential conflict
> (usually
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > >> > > care to not mention we don't use a qualifier, here we do).
> > > > > >> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> > > Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > > > >> > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > > it was just one of several possibilities you have.
> > > > > >> > > > in any case, the special case you mentioned is still easy
> > > enough
> > > > > ->
> > > > > >> > there
> > > > > >> > > > is no issue/blocker imo.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > > >> > > > gerhard
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >> so didnt get your comment on decorators...
> > > > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain:
> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do it without
> > cdi
> > > > > >> anyway.
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > >> work
> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or
> > > just
> > > > do
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is
> if
> > > you
> > > > > >> base
> > > > > >> > > your
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it
> starts
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > common,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically
> > > wrapping
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using
> filters)
> > > and
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> > > >> case
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is
> > doable
> > > > but
> > > > > >> needs
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you
> > > > aggregate
> > > > > >> > > multiple
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <
> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the
> > > > > >> ds-servlet-module,
> > > > > >> > > you
> > > > > >> > > >> just
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do
> the
> > > > same
> > > > > >> > > anyway).
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app
> producing
> > > > http*
> > > > > >> > objects
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so
> > > > > conflicts
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > > >> occurs
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <
> > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi,
> > > > > >> seam3,...).
> > > > > >> > > >> since it
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> used
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility
> > > issues".
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to
> > veto
> > > > one
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > them),
> > > > > >> > > >> no
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> user
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and
> for
> > > the
> > > > > >> > majority
> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > >> was
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> easier
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all).
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > gerhard
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already
> known
> > > > > >> producers
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > >> >> or
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> is
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > >> imo.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> Otherwise
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> we
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different
> > > > > containers.
> > > > > >> > They
> > > > > >> > > >> most
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> times
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> behave different...
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible
> > > > > incompatibilities.
> > > > > >> And
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > >> >> this a
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without
> much
> > > > > >> additional
> > > > > >> > > >> >> complexity.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really
> pay
> > > > off?
> > > > > >> How
> > > > > >> > do
> > > > > >> > > you
> > > > > >> > > >> >> know
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> are running in an environment which already
> has
> > > > such
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > producer
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> registered?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> This is not easy to accomplish!
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> strub
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek <
> > > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really
> > need
> > > > > @Web?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >@external producers:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g.
> > > > > >> producers, if
> > > > > >> > > they
> > > > > >> > > >> >> see
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> any
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >overlap).
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity
> > > just
> > > > > >> because
> > > > > >> > > >> there
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> might
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> be a
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >custom producer (for the same).
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >gerhard
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth <
> > > > > christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module
> provides
> > > more
> > > > > >> than
> > > > > >> > > what
> > > > > >> > > >> CDI
> > > > > >> > > >> >> 1.1
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> adds.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> For example the event propagation and the
> > > > recently
> > > > > >> > added
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> "WebStorage"
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> for
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people
> > may
> > > > want
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > add
> > > > > >> > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Servlet
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be
> > > nice
> > > > to
> > > > > >> get
> > > > > >> > > rid
> > > > > >> > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> @Web.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> For
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our
> > > produces
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > Thomas
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> suggested.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> But
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> what about other portable extensions that
> > may
> > > > have
> > > > > >> > > producers
> > > > > >> > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> @Default.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > >> classpath. I
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> think
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Solder
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> is still a common dependency of some
> > > libraries,
> > > > > >> > correct?
> > > > > >> > > In
> > > > > >> > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> regard
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> it
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for
> the
> > > > > >> producers.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko <
> > > > > >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Because our customers have different
> > servers
> > > > > >> (tomcat7
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > >> >> even
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 6,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a
> great
> > > > > >> enhancement
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> product
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > development.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament <
> > > > john.d.am...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you
> > don't
> > > > > even
> > > > > >> > need
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> servlet
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > module (so why include it as a
> > > dependency?)
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain
> > > > > >> Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be different
> > > > > depending
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > > >> >> containers
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> using
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> some
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but
> affecting
> > > ee
> > > > > >> > lifecycle
> > > > > >> > > >> (at
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> least
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> in
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > tomcat)
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas
> > > > Andraschko" <
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > écrit :
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web",
> so
> > > @Web
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > just
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> overhead
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> look nice.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if
> > > > CDI1.1
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > >> available?
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI
> > > 1.0 +
> > > > > DS,
> > > > > >> > CDI
> > > > > >> > > 1.1
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> without
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> or
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> with
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > DS.
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Regards,
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Thomas
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> --
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Christian Kaltepoth
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Kaltepoth
> > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> >
>

Reply via email to