Good question, though one I do not have as yet an answer for. However,
the classes used purely for the encoding/decoding in java are currently
about 150K unoptimised. They do also rely on Mina at present which is
278K. There would be a small amount on top of this most to tie this all
into a
If small footprint is your primary aim you might want to consider
using the Stomp protocol which is extremely easy to write a client for
(at the expense of some performance for high volume clients).
http://stomp.codehaus.org/Protocol
e.g. the entire Ruby client is a page or two of code (and its
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Finally, and I hate to say this because it may very well be just a
cultural difference between projects the Glasgow developers have
worked on and the way things work in ASF projects I'm familiar with, I
think it's disturbing that all answers to questions concerning this
The vote was public on the roller-dev list..
Mvgr,
Martin
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
It's a good thing to notify [EMAIL PROTECTED];
I think the vote was not public, isn't it ?
Maybe we should put it to the guide lines; that for non-public votes
the result shouldn't posted only only the
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:04:33PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 8/3/06, Ted Leung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been told that three contributors to the various Heraldry code
bases were accidentallly omitted from the Heraldlry
Congrats to Craig :)
This is the right way to tackle this I think. Just needs a reference
(message-id or http://mail-archives...) to the vote thread and then
everyone can be real happy.
LSD
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:26:28PM -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
Notifying [EMAIL PROTECTED] of the vote
Hi everybody,
I don't have a binding vote here, but..
-1
I strongly object to the name, in some sense I object to this name
because it is also the name of the city in which I work, and
conversations about Glasgow will be a bit wierd.
But very much more importantly I would also like to
Danny Angus wrote:
I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
connection.
Just by way of explanation, this name was proposed as (a) it is
On 8/4/06, Gordon Sim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
connection.
Just by way of
On 04/08/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that these reasons would have been obvious if the discussion on
what to change the name to had happened in public...
Quite.
d.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 30/07/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
Cliff, yes I do.
As you may have seen from previous posts I've only just been catching
up with this.
My concern is that it is not appropriate for the incubator to continue
to condone
On 04/08/06, Gordon Sim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
connection.
Just by way of
http://www.glasgowsoftware.co.uk/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So it would be fine if development had been funded by the public sector (in
the form of Glasgow City Council) but since it was funded by a private
organisation it's not ok?
Robert
|-+
| | Danny Angus|
| | [EMAIL
Hi,
Just to let folks know that the CeliXfire mailing lists have been set
up for those who wish to subscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To
May I suggest making sure that all other resources are also named
cxf then? Eg
incubator.apache.org/projects/cfx.html
svn.apa.../cxf
unix group: cxf
...
etc. The reason being that it is easier on automated tools and also on
admins who may not know about the project.
We had some similar
On 4 Aug 06, at 11:28 AM 4 Aug 06, Leo Simons wrote:
May I suggest making sure that all other resources are also named
cxf then? Eg
incubator.apache.org/projects/cfx.html
svn.apa.../cxf
unix group: cxf
...
etc. The reason being that it is easier on automated tools and also on
admins who may
The project formerly known as Blaze changed its name to Glasgow based on
previous feedback and decided to follow Apache precedent (e.g. Tuscany).
Apparently there are strong objections to this precendent. In our
discussions, the group did come up with some ingenious names for the
project, but
If Apache is acceptable for the name of this organization then
I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate
regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not.
FYI, as a point of historical interest (and it's not that interesting),
purely as a
On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
not bringing the project into incubation before they have proven
On 8/4/06, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of
not
Archit,
I'm very happy to here you say so, I certainly don't want to affect
your progress through the incubator, in many ways I've unfairly sigled
you out as an example of a prectice I feel strongly about.
Unfortunately I will be away, offline, for the next four days, but if
it is still
Robert,
Try Apache, and Geronimo. What about Jakarta?
I think its time we just stopped this, Glasgow isn't probably too bad.
But what if you'd picked Bristol?
I'm not picking on you particularly, I just think its time we
reconsidered the re-use of proper nouns.
d.
On 04/08/06, [EMAIL
On 04/08/06, Larry Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Apache is acceptable for the name of this organization then
I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate
regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not.
I don't believe that it is. I
Martin-
yes we solved it recently. But... the process of solving that is not
quite clear. I created an issue / task in JIRA for that.
I am only refering to the trademark issue; the rest was pretty easy,
the community voted on the name. We only ensured that no names with
*potential* trademark
I agree that the debate on the name is not a useful discussion. If nobody
else has a problem with the use of proper nouns in general can I suggest
that we move back to discussing the more significant points raised by
others?
Regarding the openness of the standard and its processes, I would like
On 8/4/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/4/06, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding).
I very much agree with
On 8/4/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course everyone should make their own minds about this after a
careful reading of the threads (and may see things differently),
but
I wouldn't have agreed to champion the proposal if I had the sense
there was not a commitment to create
I understand that there are some specific circumstances in this case,
but in general I believe this sort of criteria is why we get
complaints that it's impossible to innovate at Apache any more. We
require all the grunt work of innovation to occur outside of Apache.
The issues of an open
On 8/4/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/4/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nor would I, as a mentor, ever allow any project to move through
incubation without actively working to create such a community.
I have no doubt that this is the case, and if I said anything
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
I understand that there are some specific circumstances in this case,
but in general I believe this sort of criteria is why we get
complaints that it's impossible to innovate at Apache any more. We
require all the grunt work of innovation to occur outside of Apache.
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
submitted as Blaze) have now been addressed enough to call a vote
for accepting the project for incubation.
Cliff, so it is not lost (I switched subjects to a discussion forum that,
oddly, you have not
Everyone...
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Coach,
If you don't view your question as related to the vote, would you mind
reposting it to a separate or an existing thread about Glasgow?
Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I like to keep vote threads
to just votes and critical questions
IMO the reason this naming debate hasn't been settled is because of the
way in which the change from Blaze to Glasgow was achieved: it was done
privately and the result was announced here.
I can imagine how frustrating this must be to folks who are new to
Apache, but folks here don't like private
34 matches
Mail list logo
