(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 does
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 be used to
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 50% of
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
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
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
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.
Making
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:
snip
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
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]
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
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 and
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 which
12 matches
Mail list logo
