Thanx for the reply ;)) See inline.. On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 13:18, James Taylor wrote: > > - You are in the wrong bug database (note : I cannot reach the scarab > > one btw) > > Yep!
On the wrong bug database or that I cannot reach the scarab one ;) If it is the wrong database, all current issues in bugzilla should be closed and say that is moved to another bug database. (I am willing to do that btw, if I can reach the scarab one) > > > - I don't care about t2 > > That's me! Although there are other people who do, but we are all very > busy. A unit test always helps to make us feel more comfortable > committing a patch. I have a test case (for me almost the only way to get things tested in the first place), but you cannot use it as a testcase in turbine, since I adjusted the turbine sources, to get it fixed independetly of turbine in the first place ;). (turbine 2 is lacking a lot of tests anyway..) Any tips on getting this running in a test without stripping out calls to the eg TurbinResources (besides from running Turbine itself..) About the extra functionality that can be put in there, is that an option? or how do other people feel about that ? Also I couldn't find the cvsparser in t3. Is it there and couldn't I find it or isn't it there and is there need for such a service (or whatever name it was given..). Any ideas? (I can completely replace the cvsparser to behave more like a CSV database, if that is needed..) > > Also, looks like the *ValueParser patches don't follow the coding > standard =] I will check where my tabs were left in or left out or I completely forgot about coding standards.. At least I tried to do conform..;) > > > - I don't care about t2 bugs > > - I don't care about bugs at all > > - I don't know the answer to the questions. > > - I don't know the intended behaviour of the bugs. > > - I don't want patches by people you don't know. > > - I really don't have time for bugs right now > > - Someone else is handling all of these things (who??) > > Regarding the configuration thing, ',' is the only character that needs > to be escaped. Yes that makes things work differently from Properties > (why they chose to allow escaping those characters I do not understand). > I'm amicable toward changes to PropertyConfiguration to make it behave > more like Properties, but the risk is breaking existing configs which > have \:, \=, \# in them and expect those to be read literally (probably > unlikely). How do other feel? The java.util.Properties is almost a text file parser, according to the javadocs anyway. So maybe just specifying in the javadoc that the properties turbine uses is not the same as the Properties will do.. > > I guess I'm +1 -- willing to change my configurations and do the work > (or accept a patch =). I already assigned the issue to me ;) So I will have a go when it is clear what is really needed. Mvgr, Martin van den Bemt > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
