[Lift] Re: not found: Full, Empty, Box

2009-11-06 Thread Neil.Lv
Hannes, Please import the common package. It doesn't exist in the net.liftweb.util._ package now in the M7. ### import net.liftweb.common._ ### Cheers, Neil On Nov 6, 6:06 pm, Hannes wrote: > Hey Lifters, > > I just updated to scala 2.7.7 and lift 1.1-M7. Now I get the above > compilati

[Lift] not found: Full, Empty, Box

2009-11-06 Thread Hannes
Hey Lifters, I just updated to scala 2.7.7 and lift 1.1-M7. Now I get the above compilation errors. I couldn't find any documentation where Full, Empty and Box are located now...sorry to bother you with this thanks. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this m

[Lift] Re: beginner's question about surround/bind/bind-at/with-param

2009-11-06 Thread YING-KWANG TU
Please slap import net.liftweb.common._ into those files that doesn't compile. On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim wrote: > > They were moved to net.liftweb.common. > > - > jhonig wrote: > > > I used 1.0, now switching to 1.1-M7, will report lat

[Lift] Re: javax.mail 1.4.3-SNAPSHOT

2009-11-06 Thread David Bernard
About "removing" transitive dependency. The maven "rules" is if you use a library A2 directly in your code list it explicitly/directly as dependency including it it's already a transitive dependency of library A1 (alreyd listed). You have no assurance that other version of A1 use A2 (including in

[Lift] Re: beginner's question about surround/bind/bind-at/with-param

2009-11-06 Thread Naftoli Gugenheim
They were moved to net.liftweb.common. - jhonig wrote: I used 1.0, now switching to 1.1-M7, will report later. First result is that now the Boot file of the demo project doesn't compile anymore. Box, Full, and Empty are not found. Job H. On Nov 5, 11:47

[Lift] Re: lift jpa maven

2009-11-06 Thread ivan
On 6 stu, 06:50, Indrajit Raychaudhuri wrote: > The archetypes needs some spit and polish. > I'll take them up next week. Thanks! Can't wait. I need those archetypes to get started (again) with lift with jpa. > > Cheers, Indrajit > > On 06/11/09 2:54 AM, David Pollak wrote: > > > Hmmm... > > >