Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> (cc: stefano because I used his name in vane)
>
> Peter Donald wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:34, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>> I'm doing some work on Avalonizing FOP, as it has been decided it's the
>>> right way.
>>>
>>> We are using already LogEnabled, and now it's time for Configuration,
>>> but most important of all, usage of the SourceResolver.
>>>
>>> Now, I'm dealing with a problem I already had with POI (we want to
>>> avalonize it too probably).
>>>
>
> We do? I don't. Wrapper it with an avalon thing, but I'll -1 the hell
Shut up, Andrew, I know all this, you know all this, in fact this is
what the thread is all about: Avalon makes sense for Services, and POI
is a Services but NOT made on services.
Don't worry.
> out of any attempt to make the bits and pieces avalonized. And I'll fly
> over to Italy and beat you (nkb) with a wet noodle if you mark anything
> with LogEnabled in POI. Its inappropriate IMHO in a low level API.
Gee, man, I did it before, it was shit, I changed it to our wrapper again.
See, I'm innocent!
It was you that asked to alavonize it, and I came to the conclusion that
it didn't make sense low level.
No news under the sun.
<snip/>
> NOT everything tht CAN be avalonized should be.
The nail, the hammer...
> Less is more.
Nonsense sentence.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
