ping?
(i didn't really intend this to slow down the momentum)
- robert
On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 14:01 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 08:14 -0400, James Carman wrote:
i think that the proposal could be improved. it's usually used as the
basis of the introduction
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 06:50 -0400, James Carman wrote:
What would an abstract class buy us? Suppose ProxyFactory were an abstract
class. In the initial release, it would have some abstract methods to be
overridden in the subclasses. Then, I might have some users who decide (for
some crazy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
My comments are interleaved:
[snip]
commons-proxy.imi, commons-proxy.ipr and lo4j.properties files need a
license boilerplate.
I fixed log4j.properties, but every time I edit the Intellij IDEA files,
IDEA
List
Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 16:35 +0200, Knut Wannheden
wrote:
On 10/19/05, James Carman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would also like to reiterate stephen's
warning: if you use
interfaces,
be very sure that you are not going to need
Developers List
Subject: RE: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
Why can ProxyFactory not be an abstract class?
Stephen
--- James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert,
How about this? We provide a default
implementation which just uses JDK
proxies. So, ReflectionProxyFactory would
]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:04 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
My comments are interleaved:
[snip]
commons-proxy.imi, commons-proxy.ipr
i think that the proposal could be improved. it's usually used as the
basis of the introduction paragraph for the component. a good proposal
is a powerful weapon against featuritus and scope drift. so, it's
important for the long term health of a project.
The package shall create and
On 10/19/05, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would also like to reiterate stephen's warning: if you use interfaces,
be very sure that you are not going to need to change them in any
fashion. i would very strongly suggest implementing the key
ProxyFactory logical interface as an
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 16:35 +0200, Knut Wannheden wrote:
On 10/19/05, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would also like to reiterate stephen's warning: if you use interfaces,
be very sure that you are not going to need to change them in any
fashion. i would very strongly suggest
compatibility?
James
-Original Message-
From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:18 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 16:35 +0200, Knut Wannheden wrote:
On 10/19/05
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:28 -0400, James Carman wrote:
Of course, I meant the only *required* dependency that Commons Proxy has is
the JDK itself.
great :)
i think that the proposal could be improved. it's usually used as the
basis of the introduction paragraph for the component. a good
My comments are interleaved:
i think that the proposal could be improved. it's usually used as the
basis of the introduction paragraph for the component. a good proposal
is a powerful weapon against featuritus and scope drift. so, it's
important for the long term health of a project.
The
. But, we may want to stick with this. I don't know.
James
-Original Message-
From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:03 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
I have implemented what I was talking
Of course, I meant the only *required* dependency that Commons Proxy has is
the JDK itself.
-Original Message-
From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:26 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
James Carman wrote:
Thank you for your feedback (finally somebody said *something*). I made
this a vote based on the instructions found at
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN.
Maybe
we should update that WIKI
: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
James Carman wrote:
Thank you for your feedback (finally somebody said *something*). I made
this a vote based on the instructions found at
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN.
Maybe
we should update that WIKI
, October 15, 2005 6:28 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
hi james
IMO it would be better to make this a proposal. quite often, small
changes will are needed and discussion required. votes tend to get a
little confused and lost when
: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
James Carman wrote:
Thank you for your feedback (finally somebody said *something*). I made
this a vote based on the instructions found at
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN.
Maybe
we should update that WIKI to suggest
18 matches
Mail list logo
