If Rich wants to keep his stuff there because it meets his needs and
he is fully aware of what they do and how they do it then all of this
is irrelevant.
In any case security risk is really a overblown term for even the
worst case scenario of what could happen to documentation pages. If
you are
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Sean Devlin francoisdev...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I'm willing to bet this crowd has already seen this:
http://www.sun.com/third-party/global/oracle/index.jsp
Any thoughts on how this affects Clojure?
No effect.
--
blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com
Writing a TIM is definitely the way to go, It's a place to hide the glue
until both Terracotta and Clojure catches up with each other.
uhhh what is a TIM?
Thanks
Hank
--
blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
How does one make a standard clojure based class file or jar file without
embedding clojure source files.
Hank
--
blog: whydoeseverythingsuck.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Clojure group.
To
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Greg Harman ghar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hank:
I have looked at TC in the past, and took another look today at your
suggestion. Terracotta certainly seems to have promise feature-wise,
but I have to admit it's a heavier solution than I had been thinking
of, and
As has been discussed on this list before, it seems to me the basis for this
should be terracotta, which handles much (most?) of the heavy lifiting
required for this kind of task. Have you looked at it?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Greg Harman ghar...@gmail.com wrote:
One of Clojure's big
hmm... I'm confused. From the numbers in your example it looks like
server has an advantage by a factor of about 2x. But in your text you
say that the client version has an advantage with complicated code.
What am I missing? Does one JVM have the advantage in one situation
and one in others?
