We should be able to do a build without having to much of Jeff's time.
I think we are capable of doing most of the steps except for maybe the
deploy. Jeff, what do you think?
I documented the release process the best I could for just such
emergencies. But since I am not currently in Iraq, I'll
No worries, I am here. You just can't see me 'cus of that Invisibility
spell I cast on myself some time ago. I am only able to do
administrative tasks at the moment (like saving you all from junk email
sent from the digital orcs in Mordor). Admin tasks do include little
things like *releases
No worries. Get to it when you can. Any comments you may have would be
appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
Carl A. Dunham wrote:
My apologies for not getting feedback to you on this. I hope to be able to get
to it this weekend...
On Friday April 4 2003 10:45, Michael Becke wrote:
I'm not entirely su
I'm not entirely sure about MultiThreadedConnectionManager. There
hasn't been any feedback since I posted my patch. I believe it is quite
close though. I will do some more testing on my own but I think it
needs some real-world use to be sure.
We should be able to do a build without having to
That would also suffice. If possible, I would prefer to pass an
implementation of the interface in to HttpConnection upon creation
rather than have it as a global setting, but I presume that's easier
anyway.
I'm not exactly sure how it would get implemented but it could be on a
per connection b
Michael Becke wrote:
I would support addition regardless, but then that's just me. I
assume by "custom DNS resolution" you mean passing in the resolved
values eg the HttpClient library is told: "here's the Name/IP
mapping, do a GET to this IP with this Host: "?
I was thinking more along the l
I would support addition regardless, but then that's just me. I assume
by "custom DNS resolution" you mean passing in the resolved values eg
the HttpClient library is told: "here's the Name/IP mapping, do a GET to
this IP with this Host: "?
I was thinking more along the lines of an interface tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-02-27 18:37 ---
I'd like to go ahead and tackle this one, but I need a little clarification.
Does the following correctly describe what we want?
- we want to perform a get on www.google.com, let's say
