-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Rice Yeh wrote:
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 14:58:12 +0800
From: Rice Yeh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: mvn compile for core block fails in 2.2 snapshot
Hi,
I checked out the
On 1/3/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
--- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Yeah, and I really don't understand this - I (and
others) propose small
but simple steps to a) improve using Cocoon and b)
provide a smooth
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
So I'm coming back to my idea, is anyone against adding constructor
injection to ECM++ or at least make it pluggable so I can add it for my
own projects? The change adds only a feature while maintaining 100%
compatibility.
I have strong reservations about components
Addressing both, Sylvain's and Gianugo's response (at least partially):
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
It's not so easy. First let me state that I don't have any particular
blocker if all we're talking about is adding constructor injection to
ECM++: whatever goes in the direction of a lighter and
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1709?page=comments#action_12361593
]
Jean-Baptiste Quenot commented on COCOON-1709:
--
Ralph, I don't know why I don't get notified of your comments, not even on
cocoon-dev.
I made some tests, with
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Hmm, so why is ECM++ different from ECM (includes, JMX etc.)? With the
same argument we could just use ECM with the container integrations and
that's it.
Oh yes, sure! And why not going back to the Director interface of the
good old Cocoon 1.0 times?
Seriously,
Sorry, but I don't comment on this. Just one (final) question: are you
-1 on the changes?
Carsten
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Hmm, so why is ECM++ different from ECM (includes, JMX etc.)? With the
same argument we could just use ECM with the container integrations and
that's
Andrew Savory wrote:
Everyone: Jean-Baptiste is becoming more and more active on the dev
list, and has been diligently filing bugs and patches for the last
few months. The first post about his activity is from July, 2004 [1].
He seems to have a good grasp of the guts of Cocoon. I think
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sorry, but I don't comment on this. Just one (final) question: are you -1 on
the changes?
Yes, -1 because:
- the mixed model will bring confusion,
- having yet another Cocoon-specific way of handling components just
makes the learning curve steeper,
- the number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:13:33 +0100
From: Sylvain Wallez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Simplifying component handling
Carsten Ziegeler
Giacomo Pati wrote:
I'm with Sylvain's and Gianugo's oppinion. I also see users getting
confused with multiple choices of how to write a component.
I personally don't see a problem *if* we tell them how to do it right.
Perhaps I'm wrong, don't know.
I'd say in this area we need a revolution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:46:38 +0100
From: Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [2.2] Problems with JMX Support and Tomcat
Giacomo
Giacomo Pati wrote:
I'm with Sylvain's and Gianugo's opinion. I also see users getting
confused with multiple choices of how to write a component. I'd say
in this area we need a revolution instead of an evolution.
Moving to POJOs doesn't need a revolution. We already have the bridge.
Maybe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 11:49:32 +0100
From: Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Simplifying component handling
Giacomo Pati
On 1/3/06, Giacomo Pati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm with Sylvain's and Gianugo's oppinion. I also see users getting
confused with multiple choices of how to write a component. I'd say in
this area we need a revolution instead of an evolution.
I really don't get this objection; if I see a
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1375?page=all ]
Carsten Ziegeler closed COCOON-1375:
Resolution: Won't Fix
As there has been no feedback at all, I'll close this
Bugfixes enhancement to the Applicationproxy in the portal block
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1385?page=all ]
Carsten Ziegeler closed COCOON-1385:
Resolution: Won't Fix
I'll close this issue as the patch is against an old version and the patch
addresses more things than this issue is about.
On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On 1/3/06, Giacomo Pati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm with Sylvain's and Gianugo's oppinion. I also see users getting
confused with multiple choices of how to write a component. I'd
say in
this area we need a revolution instead of an
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
So I'm coming back to my idea, is anyone against adding constructor
injection to ECM++ or at least make it pluggable so I can add it for my
own projects? The change adds only a feature while maintaining 100%
compatibility.
Why not setter injection?
Vadim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Right. And the simplest and most consistent step to go forward is IMO to just
use what's already there, providing a nice bridge to a rock-solid container
used by thousands of people.
If you mean Spring
On 12/20/05, Max Pfingsthorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On another note: I need the eventcaching block for webdav, but
that one only needs jms in one class, and databases in the
samples. So, I'll work on the dependency issue there instead of
in the webdav block directly.
...
21 matches
Mail list logo
