Committers can work on branches. The general solution is that if you are
working on something that is "new" or "dangerous" use a branch with the
following naming convention:

wip-<name>-<feature>

E.g. wip-tim-localization

Checkout the thread oliver started "git ouch" - I just posted instructions
there for creating branches on the lift repo for committers.

Good luck.

Cheers, Tim



On 29/05/2009 14:54, "Jonas Bonér" <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> I'll go for closures. Much simpler and less intrusive into Lift.
> The current impl is based on Atomikos and Hibernate, I'll start with
> pushing that in and we can make it pluggable later.
> For example for Hibernate one need to add a line to the hibernate
> config to register the
> org.hibernate.transaction.TransactionManagerLookup class in order to
> make Hibernate aware of our TX manager.
> 
> Should I fork the github repo and submit patches or how do you guys work?
> 
> /Jonas
> 
> 
> 2009/5/29 Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com>:
>> I'd vote for closures. We use annotations for JPA because we have to, but
>> IMHO closures provide a nicer semantic approach because they syntactically
>> enclose the block where the action is occurring.
>> 
>> Derek
>> 
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> No perf difference. The annotations are turned into the same exact
>>> closures.
>>> 
>>> 2009/5/29 Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are there any performance implications considering closures vs
>>>> annotations?
>>>> Agreed that closures are more "lift like" however.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers, Tim
>>>> 
>>>> On 29/05/2009 10:21, "marius d." <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that would be really good. But I'd rather not use annotations.
>>>>> Personally I find closures approach a much better fit here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> withTxRequired {
>>>>>   ... // do transational stuff
>>>>> 
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Br's,
>>>>> Marius
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 29, 11:55 am, Jonas Bonér <jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi guys.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have been talking with David Pollak the rest of the lift team about
>>>>>> adding JTA to Lift. I have implemented that for a product written in
>>>>>> Scala some time ago. Now some of that code is OSS
>>>>>> at:http://github.com/jboner/skalman/tree
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We used using two different APIs.
>>>>>> 1. Annotations (would require Lift to support proxied objects, e.g.
>>>>>> grab them from a factory):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @TransactionAttribute(REQUIRED)
>>>>>> def transactionalMethod = { ... }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Call-by-name:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> withTxRequired {
>>>>>>   ... // do transational stuff
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But I don't know what fits Lift and would like to know how you guys
>>>>>> would like to have JTA integrated.
>>>>>> At which level? Which APIs? Etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jonas Bonér
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> twitter: @jboner
>>>>>> blog:    http://jonasboner.com
>>>>>> work:  http://crisp.se
>>>>>> work:  http://scalablesolutions.se
>>>>>> code:  http://github.com/jboner
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jonas Bonér
>>> 
>>> twitter: @jboner
>>> blog:    http://jonasboner.com
>>> work:   http://crisp.se
>>> work:   http://scalablesolutions.se
>>> code:   http://github.com/jboner
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to