On 05/17/2013 05:50 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 16/05/13 19:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/16/2013 05:57 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Well if that's a
On 05/17/2013 05:50 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 16/05/13 19:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/16/2013 05:57 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Well if that's a
On 16/05/13 19:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/16/2013 05:57 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Well if that's a requirement, then it just has to be added right?
On 05/16/2013 05:57 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
the Java philosophy, and with a clean API.
On 16/05/13 19:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/16/2013 05:57 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Well if that's a requirement, then it just has to be added right?
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
the Java philosophy, and with a clean API. We'll think about enhancing
it when (and if!) the need arise.
Seems the way to go.
On that, here are a few more thoughts on java's
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
the Java philosophy, and with a clean API. We'll think about enhancing
it when (and if!)
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
the Java philosophy, and with a clean API. We'll think about enhancing
it when (and if!) the need arise.
Seems the way to go.
On that, here are a few more thoughts on java's
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
the Java philosophy, and with a clean API. We'll think about enhancing
it when (and if!) the need arise.
Seems the way to go.
On 15/05/13 22:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/15/2013 01:52 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
On 14/05/13 03:47, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
the Java philosophy, and with a clean API. We'll think about enhancing
it when (and if!)
Given all the rationales given by Russ and Micheal, I think we should
drop the idea of having smart dependencies for the moment being (I
suggested that because, in my ignorance of Java, I thought they would
be easy to implement).
Instead, let's start implementing something *correct*, in line with
On 05/12/2013 06:29 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
Hi again,
I (mostly) just have an observation to add to the bug tracker discussion
on the dependency generation.
Using $? will not suffice as a dependency check, as it's trivially easy
to create an example which will compile ok after a change
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
On 05/12/2013 06:29 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
Hi again,
I (mostly) just have an observation to add to the bug tracker discussion
on the dependency generation.
Using $? will not suffice as a dependency check, as it's trivially easy
to
On 05/12/2013 06:29 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
Hi again,
I (mostly) just have an observation to add to the bug tracker discussion
on the dependency generation.
Using $? will not suffice as a dependency check, as it's trivially easy
to create an example which will compile ok after a change
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
On 05/12/2013 06:29 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
Hi again,
I (mostly) just have an observation to add to the bug tracker discussion
on the dependency generation.
Using $? will not suffice as a dependency check, as it's trivially easy
to
On 13/05/13 02:28, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/12/2013 06:29 AM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
Using $? will not suffice as a dependency check, as it's trivially easy
to create an example which will compile ok after a change but create a
broken jar. e.g. add a new abstract method to an abstract
Hi Stefano,
On 10/05/13 22:15, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
So, if you are willing to go ahead, you might want to clone the Automake
git repository, read the HACKING file, and start perusing the files
'bin/automake.in' and 'lib/am/*.am' for inspiration.
Thanks for all this information. I write
Hi again,
I (mostly) just have an observation to add to the bug tracker discussion
on the dependency generation.
Using $? will not suffice as a dependency check, as it's trivially easy
to create an example which will compile ok after a change but create a
broken jar. e.g. add a new abstract
[+cc bug#9088]
On 05/08/2013 12:08 PM, Michael Zucchi wrote:
Hi list,
I recently added a tiny bit of java+jni to an auto* configured project,
and during the process came across some discussion from about two years
ago about improving Java support. As documented on:
19 matches
Mail list logo
