> We might keep the Request class workable but let it delegate the work to > a SF2:Request class, introduce a FronController class delegating to > several components of SF2 but still do its previous work and introduce a > Response class, delegating its work to a SF2:Response but still allowing > people to write echo in their ManagerComponent if they want : we will > just propose them a new (better) way of doing it.
Just about the transition, I share the small method I wrote during the dev sprint that allows using a template without breaking the existing ? I just a small piece of code that allows to move the presentation in a template if wanted. So it can be a first step to introduce templates, and when everyone will have move its code in template, we can introduce a warning message about echoing directly from the ManagerComponent. It's a lot easier to add HTML (or even JS) if needed and also easier to understand than lots of <?php echo '<h1> Hi' . $name . '</h1><br/>' ; ?> Regards Goulwen ----------------------------------------------------- Twitter : http://twitter.com/nautilebleu/ Skype : nautilebleu Web : http://nautilebleu.tumblr.com/ 2011/3/31 <dev-requ...@lists.chamilo.org>: > Send Dev mailing list submissions to > dev@lists.chamilo.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > dev-requ...@lists.chamilo.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > dev-ow...@lists.chamilo.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Nautile Bleu) > 2. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Sven Vanpoucke) > 3. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Systho) > 4. Re: A big dependency... Symfony2 (Laurent Opprecht) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:55:48 +0200 > From: Nautile Bleu <nautileb...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 > To: dev@lists.chamilo.org > Message-ID: > <AANLkTi=mT=wdP8NikneMdkFUKy5qOVQvhRTcZh=go...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a mildly >> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) > > If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among > other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the > sketches of Monty Python :) >> >> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. Truth be >> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I were >> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a few >> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me well?) > > Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony > 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, > maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. > >> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. > > My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) > doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current > Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in > a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of > functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with > less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change > so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to > develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we > would all use Moodle? > >> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but at the >> very >> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >> Olivier and Michael Caine) > > It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie > metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and > probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 > release) > >> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. > > In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component > without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's > really a bunch of components loosely coupled. > http://symfony.com/components > > It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced > step-by-step. > >> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP Requests >> AND >> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our project? >> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) > > Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have > two libs to handle the same thing. > >> >> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. > > I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 > but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who > keep an eye on that as coordinator :) > >> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >> and/or ZF 2? > > Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people > currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be > realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a > problem. > > Regards, > > Goulwen > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:17:12 +0200 > From: Sven Vanpoucke <sven.vanpou...@hogent.be> > Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 > To: dev@lists.chamilo.org > Message-ID: <4d941c68.7030...@hogent.be> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi All > > The last few days i took a big look at how symfony and doctrine work. I > must say that i'm impressed about the possibilities of the two frameworks. > > However... We are currently at the point where all the available > developers need to deliver something between july / september. This > means that we do not have the resources to integrate an entire new > framework. I really really hope that after going in production and > solving the first production issues the core developers of the product > can spend some time again on these things. > > I do feel that using an entire framework at this stage of development is > as hans already stated just a bridge to far. This would mean that we > would need to change our entire architecture and i believe that if we > would do that we could really forget new releases in the following > years. I do agree that both SF2 / ZF2 have some very interesting > features but i propose that we try to learn as much as possible from > these frameworks so we can make our own chamilo framework even better. > > But if you can find me at least 20 developers who can maintain the > current product and fix all the remaining issues then i'm not opposed to > spend time on changing these things entirely ;) > > Best regards > Sven > > Op 30/03/11 22:55, Nautile Bleu schreef: >>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a mildly >>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >>> >> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >> sketches of Monty Python :) >> >>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. Truth be >>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I were >>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a few >>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me well?) >>> >> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >> >> >>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >>> >> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >> would all use Moodle? >> >> >>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but at the >>> very >>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >>> >> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >> release) >> >> >>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >>> >> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >> http://symfony.com/components >> >> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >> step-by-step. >> >> >>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>> Requests AND >>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our project? >>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >>> >> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >> two libs to handle the same thing. >> >> >>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >>> >> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >> >> >>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>> and/or ZF 2? >>> >> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >> problem. >> >> Regards, >> >> Goulwen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> Dev@lists.chamilo.org >> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >> > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groeten > > Sven Vanpoucke > Digitaal Leren > Directie Onderwijs > Hogeschool Gent > http://digitaal-leren.hogent.be/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:19:36 +0200 > From: Systho <sys...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 > Cc: dev@lists.chamilo.org > Message-ID: <4d942b08.2090...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi all, > > I think my question has derived a little bit so may I have your opinion > about the following idea : > > Not breaking anything but doing the same things we did before by > delegating to components from SF2. or ZF2.0. Then mark the still working > way of doing stuff deprecated and propose a new way. > > As most of you know my main concern is automated tests and the > froncontroller/request/response stuff. > > We might keep the Request class workable but let it delegate the work to > a SF2:Request class, introduce a FronController class delegating to > several components of SF2 but still do its previous work and introduce a > Response class, delegating its work to a SF2:Response but still allowing > people to write echo in their ManagerComponent if they want : we will > just propose them a new (better) way of doing it. > > If the size of the dependency is not a problem (none of you stated it > is), then from my POV the only problem left is that we might finish with > a lot of dependency : > > SF2.0 for request handling / ZF2.0 for templating / CodeIgniter for > logging / .... > > I think it is not a problem as long as we hide those dependencies behind > custom adapter classes but your opinion would be highly valuable before > I begin the work ;) > > Systho > Le 31/03/2011 8:17, Sven Vanpoucke a ?crit : >> Hi All >> >> The last few days i took a big look at how symfony and doctrine work. >> I must say that i'm impressed about the possibilities of the two >> frameworks. >> >> However... We are currently at the point where all the available >> developers need to deliver something between july / september. This >> means that we do not have the resources to integrate an entire new >> framework. I really really hope that after going in production and >> solving the first production issues the core developers of the product >> can spend some time again on these things. >> >> I do feel that using an entire framework at this stage of development >> is as hans already stated just a bridge to far. This would mean that >> we would need to change our entire architecture and i believe that if >> we would do that we could really forget new releases in the following >> years. I do agree that both SF2 / ZF2 have some very interesting >> features but i propose that we try to learn as much as possible from >> these frameworks so we can make our own chamilo framework even better. >> >> But if you can find me at least 20 developers who can maintain the >> current product and fix all the remaining issues then i'm not opposed >> to spend time on changing these things entirely ;) >> >> Best regards >> Sven >> >> Op 30/03/11 22:55, Nautile Bleu schreef: >>>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a >>>> mildly >>>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >>> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >>> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >>> sketches of Monty Python :) >>>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. >>>> Truth be >>>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I >>>> were >>>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a >>>> few >>>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me >>>> well?) >>> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >>> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >>> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >>> >>>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >>> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >>> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >>> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >>> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >>> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >>> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >>> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >>> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >>> would all use Moodle? >>> >>>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but >>>> at the very >>>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >>> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >>> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >>> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >>> release) >>> >>>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >>> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >>> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >>> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >>> http://symfony.com/components >>> >>> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >>> step-by-step. >>> >>>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>>> Requests AND >>>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our >>>> project? >>>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >>> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >>> two libs to handle the same thing. >>> >>>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >>> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >>> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >>> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >>> >>>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>>> and/or ZF 2? >>> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >>> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >>> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >>> problem. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Goulwen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list >>> Dev@lists.chamilo.org >>> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:24:37 +0200 > From: Laurent Opprecht <laurent.oppre...@unige.ch> > Subject: Re: [chamilo-dev] A big dependency... Symfony2 > To: dev@lists.chamilo.org > Message-ID: <4d942c35.7030...@unige.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Let's me add my two cents there. > > While SF or ZF may be good frameworks what would be the tangible > benefits to move to any of them? That is beside making us happy to know > we are using the latest trend in development framework. And, would those > benefits offset the effort to do a major refactoring, once again should > I say? Could we decrease code size significantly? Could we implement new > functionalities, for example templates a la smarty, that would be > visible to the end user? > > I am certainly not against assessing those two frameworks and possibly > moving to them but only once we have completed the work at hand. I > certainly aggree that for now we should focus on supporting production > moves. That is correcting bugs, adding needed new functionalities, etc. > > Then I think it would help to see a few examples on how we could use any > of those two framework to make our life easier. Personnaly I don't have > enough time at hand to have a deep look into those frameworks so having > a few examples would help me make an opinion. > > Cheers > > > Le 31.03.2011 08:17, Sven Vanpoucke a ?crit : >> Hi All >> >> The last few days i took a big look at how symfony and doctrine work. >> I must say that i'm impressed about the possibilities of the two >> frameworks. >> >> However... We are currently at the point where all the available >> developers need to deliver something between july / september. This >> means that we do not have the resources to integrate an entire new >> framework. I really really hope that after going in production and >> solving the first production issues the core developers of the product >> can spend some time again on these things. >> >> I do feel that using an entire framework at this stage of development >> is as hans already stated just a bridge to far. This would mean that >> we would need to change our entire architecture and i believe that if >> we would do that we could really forget new releases in the following >> years. I do agree that both SF2 / ZF2 have some very interesting >> features but i propose that we try to learn as much as possible from >> these frameworks so we can make our own chamilo framework even better. >> >> But if you can find me at least 20 developers who can maintain the >> current product and fix all the remaining issues then i'm not opposed >> to spend time on changing these things entirely ;) >> >> Best regards >> Sven >> >> Op 30/03/11 22:55, Nautile Bleu schreef: >>>> Ok ... so this is a tough one. Please not that the following is a >>>> mildly >>>> sarcastic joke: while we're at it ... could we please just move to Java >>>> for Chamilo 2. That would solve most problems and frustrations and give >>>> us access to a complete set of widely supported libraries that have >>>> really proven themselves (Hibernate, anyone?) >>> If leaves to change, I then preferred that we move to Python. Among >>> other advantages, it will give us lots of opportunities to revisit the >>> sketches of Monty Python :) >>>> Back to the serious world. I can see where this is coming from. >>>> Truth be >>>> told, if I had to restart today with Chamilo 2 ... or actually if I >>>> were >>>> the one starting ... then some other decisions might have been made. >>>> Sadly enough we've been around for a while now. I started working on >>>> Chamilo 2 back in February 2007. If my sources are correct that's about >>>> the time symfony 1.0 was released. Zend Framework 1.0 was released a >>>> few >>>> months later (somewhere in the summer of 2007 if memory serves me >>>> well?) >>> Yes, we start working on our current LMS on june 2006 with symfony >>> 0.8. It's sad that at the time we don't know the Chamilo 2.0 project, >>> maybe we were able to merge our 2 projects. >>> >>>> So where does that leave us now: with a modest framework (and that's >>>> such a "heavy" word) which doesn't offer all the functionality giants >>>> like ZF or S offer, but doesn't really need it either IMO. >>> My current perception is that new generation frameworks (SF2/ZF2) >>> doesn't do much, but try to do it well. The problem I see in current >>> Chamilo is that nearly all things that in SF/ZF are in Chamilo but in >>> a less polish and efficient way. So it's not really a question of >>> functionality scope, but rather having something easier to use, with >>> less code, more efficiently. Maybe it seems a huge project to change >>> so dramatically the project only to have something is more easy to >>> develop with, but in the other hand, pushing this logic to its end, we >>> would all use Moodle? >>> >>>> I'm not saying we should reinvent the wheel every single time, but >>>> at the very >>>> least we should make sure the wheel fits our Cars (? Pixar / Disney). I >>>> welcome ideas like using the Doctrine DBAL for access to DBMS storage >>>> engines. But, and I could be wrong about this of course, to me there is >>>> big difference between actually using something for a specific piece of >>>> functionality and using it as the basis for your entire platform. I can >>>> live with (and like) the first, but the second, at this point in time >>>> ... well ... A (virtual) Bridge Too Far (even if it features Laurence >>>> Olivier and Michael Caine) >>> It's clear that this have a Deep Impact (yes, I can also use movie >>> metaphor :p ) Moving to a SF2/ZF2 would take at least one year and >>> probably more (I would be happy if it would be available for june 2012 >>> release) >>> >>>> You could simply use whatever you need from whichever framework as a >>>> library, but considering most of them are integrated solutions, that >>>> just seems like creating extra - unwanted - overhead. >>> In fact, the way SF2 is built you can use just the Request component >>> without any other components (and so without other overhead) It's >>> really a bunch of components loosely coupled. >>> http://symfony.com/components >>> >>> It will also help a migration as parts of Chamilo can be replaced >>> step-by-step. >>> >>>> Do we really want to have both the ZF classes for dealing with HTTP >>>> Requests AND >>>> the symfony classes for dealing with HTTP Requests included in our >>>> project? >>>> (in response too: why not have more then one in there) >>> Personnally I would say no: just one. I don't see the interest to have >>> two libs to handle the same thing. >>> >>>> I know this all sounds quite negative, but sadly enough I have to work >>>> in the real world ... even though I'd much prefer to live in Utopia, >>>> where I can keep on breaking (a modest number of) things to move on to >>>> better architectures, ideas, concepts and whatnots. >>> I'd say that you're wise and realistic. I want the best for chamilo2 >>> but I also need something that works! It's good to have someone who >>> keep an eye on that as coordinator :) >>> >>>> Btw. what is the current status of (stable releases for) symfony 2 >>>> and/or ZF 2? >>> Don't know for ZF2 but SF2 is Preview Release 9. I know some people >>> currently use it in prod. But due to deadlines I consider to be >>> realistic (circa June 2012 for a full migration), it's not really a >>> problem. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Goulwen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list >>> Dev@lists.chamilo.org >>> http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev >> >> > > > -- > ____________________________________ > Meilleures salutations > > Laurent Opprecht > chat: laurent.oppre...@gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: laurent_opprecht.vcf > Type: text/x-vcard > Size: 404 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: > <http://lists.chamilo.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20110331/9d011956/attachment.vcf> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@lists.chamilo.org > http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev > > > End of Dev Digest, Vol 14, Issue 25 > *********************************** > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.chamilo.org http://lists.chamilo.org/listinfo/dev
