On 11/2/07, Prasad Kashyap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/2/07, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
As we get close to releasing Geronimo 2.1 and look beyond, I'd like to
discuss a few usability improvements we can do to G. I am
cross-posting this to the
As we get close to releasing Geronimo 2.1 and look beyond, I'd like to
discuss a few usability improvements we can do to G. I am
cross-posting this to the user-list so that we can get a direct
feedback from our dear users.
1. Dynamic status messages. Some operations may take a certain amount
of
On 11/2/07, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
As we get close to releasing Geronimo 2.1 and look beyond, I'd like to
discuss a few usability improvements we can do to G. I am
cross-posting this to the user-list so that we can get a direct
feedback from our dear
On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Can you be more specific here? What operations and how does a
message
make things any more dynamic? Is this a web console only concern
or is
it also a command line concern?
Yes. Let me give you an example. Recently I was deploying a
On Nov 2, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Can you be more specific here? What operations and how does a
message
make things any more dynamic? Is this a web console only concern
or is
it also a command line concern?
Yes. Let me
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
As we get close to releasing Geronimo 2.1 and look beyond, I'd like to
discuss a few usability improvements we can do to G. I am
cross-posting this to the user-list so that we can get a direct
feedback from our dear users.
1. Dynamic status messages. Some operations may
On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:35 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Yes. Let me give you an example. Recently I was deploying a
configuration. For a while the wheels turned and then I received an
operation successful message. However, the deployment had spewn a
boatload of stack traces to the geronimo.log file.
