Graham [mailto:dgraham1980;hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without
them, struts loses
much of its utility and importance
compatability
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush;swbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:10 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Ted Husted wrote:
I posted a starter version of the roadmap so we'd have
]
* validators
* investigate adding identifier namespaces
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:husted;apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:04 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
I posted a starter version
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Three quick notes:
* We should specifically ask on the user list about the timing
of Servlet 2.3 / JSP 1.2 dependence. I would expect this to
be a bit controversial on that short a time frame. On the
other hand, knowing we could interoperate with (and not just
Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Here's the draft roadmap that I wrote up.
Struts 1.1
* Servlet 2.2 / JSP 1.1 based
* tiles validator first class citizens
* tiles module aware
* validator module aware
* Struts-el tag lib at contrib status
+1
Ted Husted wrote:
Erik,
If you'd like to write a section for the UserGuide on using XDoclet with Struts, I'm sure we'd all love to read
it =:0)
-Ted.
--
Eddie Bush
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe;jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
I'm thick-headed and stupid - that's the problem. I was misreading the
document earlier. My apologies.
Ted stated Remaining ..., but I read in 1.2. shake-head/ I'm sorry.
Martin Cooper wrote:
I'm beginning to think that you and Eddie are reading a different document
that the one I'm
Byrne, Steven wrote:
Here's the draft roadmap that I wrote up.
Struts 1.1
* Servlet 2.2 / JSP 1.1 based
* tiles validator first class citizens
* tiles module aware
* validator module aware
* Struts-el tag lib at contrib status
* [need help here] ??? factored out into jakarta commons
*
.
-Original Message-
From: Karr, David [mailto:david.karr;attws.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:50 AM
To: 'Struts Developers List'
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush;swbell.net]
Sent: Thursday
version of JSTL.
-Original Message-
From: Karr, David [mailto:david.karr;attws.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:50 AM
To: 'Struts Developers List'
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush;swbell.net
, and that
something like regionstiles-el would be implemented separately.
-Original Message-
From: Byrne, Steven [mailto:sbyrne;dorado.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
What I meant was essentially tiles-el
-Original Message-
From: Byrne, Steven [mailto:sbyrne;dorado.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:56 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
I was given to understand that Struts-el needed Servlet 2.3, and so
that's why I suggested
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush;swbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:29 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Byrne, Steven wrote:
Here's the draft roadmap that I wrote up.
Struts 1.2 January 2003
of the developers.
David Karr -- care to chime in on whether Struts-el needs Servlet
2.3/JSP 1.2?
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush;swbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:29 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/17/2002 4:05:47 PM, Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Three quick notes:
* We should specifically ask on the user list about the timing
of Servlet 2.3 / JSP 1.2 dependence. I would expect this to
be a bit controversial on that short a time frame. On the
other hand, knowing
10/17/2002 2:28:38 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sharing is the thing we're struggling with - more precisely the
timing of implementing it. It has been suggested this would happen in
1.2, and I think that's acceptable.
Whether and when something happens will always depend on
I'll add that to my in my copious free time list :))
But seriously, one of these days I will, and I will have an example
application for folks to download as well at some point in the next
months timeframe that will illustrate this.
I might even have a go at making the struts-documentation.war
Exactly. Though, hopefully, we each will do some things not just
because it's a need *we* have. It's only understandable we'd scratch
our own itch first, but, provided we have time to implement additional
things, I like to think we would do that too. (but remember - we have
families we like
I think what we established for a roadmap yesterday seperated the 2.3
compliance conversion out into something past 1.2. There are a number
of things that aren't going to meet everyone's approval wrt 1.1F. Those
things, and only those things, as I understand it, would be in 1.2. We
need to
Steve :-)
I appreciate your effort, but we're *not* going to 2.3 / 1.2 in Struts
1.2! 1.2 is for clean-up only - to solidify modules. One of the
goals of 1.2 is still *backward-compatability* with 1.0! We cannot move
to 2.3 / 1.2 and maintain this!
Byrne, Steven wrote:
I was given to
Yeah - what he said ;-)
Ted Husted wrote:
I like Craig's idea of slotting 2.3/1.2 for 2.0.x for now.
Let's do some actually work on 1.2.x before committing to a requirements change.
If we start to feel hamstrung, we can decide that based on a specific need (keep it agile).
-Ted.
Looks good.
Ted Husted wrote:
I posted a starter version of the roadmap so we'd have something to patch :0)
http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/status.html
-Ted.
--
Eddie Bush
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe;jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without
them, struts loses
much of its utility and importance.
David
From: Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List
Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote:
As a core contributor for Expresso Framework I find this discussion
interesting.
In Expresso one of the contributors put together a XML Augmentator
that parse
several XML configuration files. We integrated Struts 1.0.2 so we do
not have
a special notation of sub
I don't think anyone is trying to say that Struts isn't useful without
Tiles/Validator. They *are* very handy though, IMHO!
I'm not sure what our leadership has in mind for deprecating/removing
Tiles/Validator in later releases. Right now, the task at hand is 1.1F.
As Ted mentioned, ... the
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:ekbush;swbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:10 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Ted Husted wrote:
I posted a starter version of the roadmap so we'd have
something to patch
Actually, looking back at that, I think I disagree with postponing
Tiles' update to 1.2. I love the idea of having a roadmap up though ;-)
Ted Husted wrote:
I posted a starter version of the roadmap so we'd have something to patch :0)
http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/status.html
-Ted.
--
Eddie Bush wrote:
Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote:
As a core contributor for Expresso Framework I find this discussion
interesting.
--SNIP--
Yes. I am not sure who started that nomenclature, but I find it more
intuative. Plus - sub-apps implies there is a super-app ;-) and there
isn't.
Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote:
Eddie Bush wrote:
Peter A. J. Pilgrim wrote:
As a core contributor for Expresso Framework I find this discussion
interesting.
--SNIP--
Yes. I am not sure who started that nomenclature, but I find it more
intuative. Plus - sub-apps implies there is a
Developers List
Subject: Multiple struts config files (was RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1
compatability)
I developed a system that handles the need for having multiple
components of a Struts application (Struts, Tiles, Validator, etc)
partitioned in a modular fashion, so that independent groups
Erik,
If you'd like to write a section for the UserGuide on using XDoclet with Struts, I'm
sure we'd all love to read
it =:0)
-Ted.
10/16/2002 8:00:00 PM, Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Using the same element name more than once is really only the tip of the
I like Craig's idea of slotting 2.3/1.2 for 2.0.x for now.
Let's do some actually work on 1.2.x before committing to a requirements change.
If we start to feel hamstrung, we can decide that based on a specific need (keep it
agile).
-Ted.
10/16/2002 8:06:58 PM, Byrne, Steven [EMAIL
No reason, I think we (you ;-) ) can close this bug with the proposed
solution. For the NoOpAction, we can deprecate it and maybe let it
extends the ForwardAction.
Cedric
Eddie Bush wrote:
Yes, I've seen that bug. I'll take a look at it.
Does anyone have a valid reason why this
There is no up to date UML diagram. The later one is a not up to date
reverse engineering of the tiles package.
What are you thoughts to make Tiles more module aware ?
Actually there is one common factory for all modules. It is possible
to propose a solution with one factory for each
Cedric Dumoulin wrote:
There is no up to date UML diagram. The later one is a not up to date
reverse engineering of the tiles package.
Ok - thanks :-) I had to ask! I think I see where things are happening
now. I feel I have a lot better understanding of it. Yesterday was the
first
Ok. Sorry about dragging my feet - I got ... well, my wife changed my
mind about what my evening plans were :-) I'll get that in today at
some point.
Cedric Dumoulin wrote:
No reason, I think we (you ;-) ) can close this bug with the proposed
solution. For the NoOpAction, we can
I don't see SilverRun JD 1.1 - there's something called ModelSphere. Is
that it? I like the idea of letting a tool build diagrams ;-)
I snagged the demo of ModelSphere.
Robert Leland wrote:
There is no up to date UML diagram.
The later one is a not up to date reverse engineering of the
Odd - I didn't see it on the products page (overlooked?) but it was on
the download page. Unfortunately that is not available in a Linux
version. I grabbed it anyhoo - I have a Windoze install too.
Eddie Bush wrote:
I don't see SilverRun JD 1.1 - there's something called ModelSphere.
Is
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 7:25 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Cedric Dumoulin wrote:
There is no up to date UML diagram. The later one is a not
up
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Odd - I didn't see it on the products page (overlooked?) but it was on
the download page. Unfortunately that is not available in a Linux
version. I grabbed it anyhoo - I have a Windoze install too.
Eddie Bush wrote:
I don't see SilverRun JD
From an API perspective, a big issue may be being able to also refer to tile
locations using both module-
relative AND application-relative URIs. In a large application, we will want to share
tiles between modules to
establish a common look and feel.
I have a beast in front of me now with 8
Ted Husted wrote:
From an API perspective, a big issue may be being able to also refer to tile
locations using both module-
relative AND application-relative URIs. In a large application, we will want to share
tiles between modules to
establish a common look and feel.
Yes - saw that coming.
10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we need a proposal maybe?
As a rule, we propose through code, since that's all we can really vote on anyway =:0)
My only point is that if I patch the controller to support a delimited list of
struts-configs, as we do with
Tiles and
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:23 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
From an API perspective, a big issue may be being able to
also refer to tile locations
10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:-/ Well, there's nothing to stop you from referencing the same physical
pages that I can think of - but the definitions would be duplicated I
suppose. This could be solved by the same concatenation tricks used for
previous versions
the issues.
+1. I was about to write something pretty similar.
--
Martin Cooper
Craig
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1
Thank God someone has started throwing their votes around. Hop on the
other thread please, Craig. I'd like to have everything in one spot.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:36:34 -0700
From: Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:27 PM -0700 2002/10/16, Martin Cooper wrote:
Now that we have modules in play, would anyone VETO adding
the capability to have a delimited list of struts-
configs (for each module) -- to match what we do with the
tiles and validator configurations? If for no other
reason, than
+1 by a non committee on M.C. vetoing new features.
Can you wait till 1.2 Ted?
.V
Martin Cooper wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:23 AM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:54:18 -0500
At 12:27 PM -0700 2002/10/16, Martin Cooper wrote:
Now that we have modules in play, would anyone VETO adding
the capability to have a delimited list of struts-
configs (for each module
10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, V. Cekvenich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you wait till 1.2 Ted?
All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a list of struts-config
files, as we do for the
validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up the config files without
buying into
Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without
them, struts loses
much of its utility and importance
16, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, V. Cekvenich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you wait till 1.2 Ted?
All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a
list of struts-config files, as we do
to address the need for modular but not totally
independent web applications.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 4:03
, perhaps with a little guidance from the original authors of
the respective components.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
To me
I think I like your intent, but I fail to see how this would accomplish it.
Ted Husted wrote:
10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we need a proposal maybe?
As a rule, we propose through code, since that's all we can really vote on anyway =:0)
My only point is that
JSF is still a moving target, isn't it? Assuming we get the current
outstanding issues cleared and cut 1.1F in a reasonable time-frame
(tbd), I really don't think it would take long to implement the
additional changes required to make modules communicate. It's really an
insignificant change
: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, V. Cekvenich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you wait till 1.2 Ted?
All that I'm saying is that we should
]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, V. Cekvenich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you wait till 1.2 Ted?
All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a
list
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:13:19 -0400
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, V. Cekvenich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you wait till 1.2 Ted?
All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a
list of struts-config files
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:29:35 -0400
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:13 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's reasonable we
Byrne, Steven wrote:
Definitely a big part of what 1.1 is all about is integrating Tiles and
Validator into the main Struts distribution. Pulling them back into
pseudo-contrib status would not be a good thing.
Yeah -- I'm -1 taking them out of core too.
Has anyone estimated the level of
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:22 PM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
Date: Wed, 16
+1 - sounds like a very good solution.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Steve, or anyone else, would like to start putting together a roadmap for Struts
1.1, 1.2, and 1.2+ (formerly
1.1+), I'll be happy to post it on the
Thanks for your clearification. I think that would be a good solution.
I wasn't seeing the trees for the forest :-(
Ted Husted wrote:
10/16/2002 5:01:55 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's reasonable we would fix things to be independent now, as
Martin and Craig have
Ted Husted wrote:
10/16/2002 5:22:13 PM, Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but
in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of
struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission :-)
I'm learning that - albeit slowly!
Craig
--
Eddie Bush
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
10/16/2002 2:43:57 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we need a proposal maybe
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:43:44 -0700
From: Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Struts Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
-Original
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:51 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Martin Cooper wrote:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:43:44
At 2:26 PM -0600 2002/10/16, David Graham wrote:
To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without them,
struts loses much of its utility and importance.
I think that's a bit extreme. Action classes are part of the core;
RequestProcessor is part of the core. I've built several Struts
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:56:22 -0500
At 2:26 PM -0600 2002/10/16, David Graham wrote:
To me, validator and tiles are part of the core. Without them, struts
loses much of its utility and importance.
I think that's a bit extreme. Action
10/16/2002 6:51:23 PM, Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's one possibility, but it leaves the door wide open for people to shoot
themselves in the foot.
Consider a situation with two config files, a.xml and b.xml. Now, a.xml
contains an action, actionA, that specifies a form
I agree that at this point pulling the Validator and Tiles from the core distribution
would be more trouble than
keeping them in, but it's important to note that both components have been around
since the Struts 0.5 era, and
I was using them in production with a late beta of Struts 1.0 years
Ted Husted wrote:
Using the same element name more than once is really only the tip of the iceberg. We
can also delete or rename a
form bean from the file and Struts will not catch the problem until runtime.
Not in my system! :) XDoclet to the rescue. Form bean definitions are
generated
: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:33 PM
To: Struts Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability
IMHO, any rational roadmap for post-1.1 is going to have to
lump proposed
changes into at least
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:
Don't have time to dive into the substantive technical details today, but
in general I'm OK with a strategy of comma-delimited list of
struts-config.xml resource files used to configure a single app module
(consistent
Eddie,
Can you take a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12309
It relates to tiles and 1.1. I'd like to get your thoughts on it. Sorry,
this didn't really answer your question.
Dave
From: Eddie Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, I've seen that bug. I'll take a look at it.
Does anyone have a valid reason why this shouldn't be done?
David Graham wrote:
Eddie,
Can you take a look at
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12309
It relates to tiles and 1.1. I'd like to get your thoughts on it.
No, but here's a related practices question:
An ActionMapping has a forward property too. If the resource in question is within the
same module, is
ActionMapping.forward better than using the ForwardAcion. (It's definatley less to
write!)
-T.
10/15/2002 3:34:29 PM, Eddie Bush [EMAIL
True - but what about tools ;-) They don't mind writing a little extra :-)
I have to admit I tend to use this format myself. I suppose the primary
reason I do is that if I ever need to change things (forward-looking) so
that the action actually does something, I can just change the class.
83 matches
Mail list logo
