(getting back on track now, i hope)
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 13:21 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:47 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:51 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > >
> > > The memory-leak-in-servlet-engine issue is a common problem and d
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 23:47 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:51 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> >
> > The memory-leak-in-servlet-engine issue is a common problem and does
> > need to be addressed one way or another. Taking a wild guess, I would
> > think that perhaps 5
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 11:51 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 21:29 +0200, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> > Simon Kitching wrote:
> > > This is only a *compile-time* dependency.
> > >
> > > Currently there is a single utility class provided in the standard
> > > logging jar which can b
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 21:29 +0200, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Simon Kitching wrote:
> > This is only a *compile-time* dependency.
> >
> > Currently there is a single utility class provided in the standard
> > logging jar which can be used to avoid memory leaks when using
> > commons-logging in servlet
Simon Kitching wrote:
This is only a *compile-time* dependency.
Currently there is a single utility class provided in the standard
logging jar which can be used to avoid memory leaks when using
commons-logging in servlet containers.
The presence of the class doesn't do any harm when used in
non
Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:50 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 12:00 AM 6/30/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
Requiring all dependencies to be present before building ensures that the
outcome of the build process is complete. However, it makes it harder for
newcomers to b
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:50 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> At 12:00 AM 6/30/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >anyone strongly object to me making the dependency on the servlet api
> >optional (by altering the build script)?
>
> There are both advantages and disadvantages to each approach.
>
>
At 12:00 AM 6/30/2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
anyone strongly object to me making the dependency on the servlet api
optional (by altering the build script)?
There are both advantages and disadvantages to each approach.
Making parts of the build optional makes it easier for newcomers to
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 17:51 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > anyone strongly object to me making the dependency
> > on the servlet api optional
>
> I'd object if you DIDN'T.
This is only a *compile-time* dependency.
Currently there is a single utility class provided in the standard
logging jar
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 10:02 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
Sorry, please make this:
If we make all compile dependencies mandatory then
> People who want customised versions of commons-logging jar files with
> only some classes present can then unpack the resulting jar, delete the
> unwanted files a
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 23:00 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> anyone strongly object to me making the dependency on the servlet api
> optional (by altering the build script)?
I would prefer to go the other way and make all of the compile-time
dependencies mandatory.
Currently the build.xml fi
> anyone strongly object to me making the dependency
> on the servlet api optional
I'd object if you DIDN'T.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone strongly object to me making the dependency on the servlet api
optional (by altering the build script)?
- robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo
