On 02/10/09 6:25 PM, David Pollak wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.com mailto:indraj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com
mailto:feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2,
Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift-
actor,lift-webkit) ?
Br's,
Marius
On Oct 3, 7:33 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/10/09 6:25 PM, David Pollak wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.com
On 04/10/09 12:32 AM, marius d. wrote:
Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift-
actor,lift-webkit) ?
1. Initially, it didn't sound right to me (when we had lift-base,
lift-util etc.).
2. DavidP commented, that lift-core currently means everything Lift.
and he
Ok ... got it. Thanks.
On Oct 3, 10:16 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/10/09 12:32 AM, marius d. wrote:
Why not lift-core = (lift-common, lift-util, lift-json, lift-
actor,lift-webkit) ?
1. Initially, it didn't sound right to me (when we had lift-base,
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
Following up from the previous round, I am summarizing what we
discussed so far with an attempt to converge and move on to impl.
Would be keen to have feedback and possibly arrive at some resolution
on
On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
Following up from the previous round, I am summarizing what we
discussed so far with an attempt to converge and move on to
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 2, 5:39 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
Following up from the previous
Indrajit,
Impressive work!
See my comments below ...
Heiko
2009/9/27 Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com
[A] lift-* prefix looks superfluous, but it's best to have one for all
artifacts that generate jar (packagingjar/packaging). Also Maven
reactor feels happier when artifactId ==
Indrajit,
Excellent work!
My thoughts inline.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Indrajit Raychaudhuri
indraj...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
As followup to the proposed goal of Keeping lift-core neat and
small, here is the first iteration of the revised structure of Lift
codebase.
liftweb
-
Indrajit,
What is the purpose of lift-resources? We cannot make the lift
installer part of the build process - belive me, i've looked into this
extensively... basically, it boils down to needed install4j licensed
on that machines which would be a stupid requirement to place on any
person
Generally I like this structure.Please see my other comments below:
On Sep 27, 3:44 pm, Indrajit Raychaudhuri indraj...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
As followup to the proposed goal of Keeping lift-core neat and
small, here is the first iteration of the revised structure of Lift
codebase.
11 matches
Mail list logo