Agree Claus,
I made it on the "Powered By Karaf" logo.
Regards
JB
On 12/09/2011 08:26 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi Christian,
The report looks good to me.
At first read the report looks good for me as well.
Regarding the "Brandin
The list of requirements are available at the bottom of the following page
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 08:26, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> The report looks good to me.
>>
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> The report looks good to me.
>
At first read the report looks good for me as well.
> Regarding the "Branding Status" section, I think that all is compliant, but
> I let Dan, Guillaume and Hadrian answer.
>
I think t
Hi Christian,
The report looks good to me.
Regarding the "Branding Status" section, I think that all is compliant,
but I let Dan, Guillaume and Hadrian answer.
Regards
JB
On 12/08/2011 11:49 PM, Christian Müller wrote:
Hello!
You can find my initial proposal for the ASF Board Report - Dece
Hello!
You can find my initial proposal for the ASF Board Report - December 2011
at [1].
Feel free to amend/correct wherever it's necessary. I will/have to submit
the board report until 12/14/2011 to the Apache board.
We have of course to alter the "Branding Status" section.
@Dan, Guillaume, Had
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Christian Schneider wrote
>
> karaf uses namings like:
> bundle:list
> service:list
>
> These are resource oriented what means that the scheme bundle references a
> resource type.
The are not exactly resource oriented, I would say the are "feature"
oriented.
Take
Yup, agree.
Regards
JB
On 12/08/2011 06:29 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
Basically this is a good idea to wait. But then it may be best to not
change the commands at all for 2.9.0 so people have to adapt only once.
What do you think?
Christian
Am 08.12.2011 16:06, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
That's exactly what I had in mind.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 18:29, Christian Schneider
wrote:
> Basically this is a good idea to wait. But then it may be best to not change
> the commands at all for 2.9.0 so people have to adapt only once.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 08.12.2011 16
Basically this is a good idea to wait. But then it may be best to not
change the commands at all for 2.9.0 so people have to adapt only once.
What do you think?
Christian
Am 08.12.2011 16:06, schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
+1
I don't see the need for a change now given that we'll have to change
a
+1
I don't see the need for a change now given that we'll have to change
again with subshells.
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:54, j...@nanthrax.net wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> I would wait the subshells and let the commands as it is.
>
> My 2 cents ;)
> Regards
> JB
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbo
You are correct, 2.10-SNAPSHOT. It doesn't necessarily mean we will have
a 2.10 (although I assume we will) as we can change that later when needed.
Cheers
On 12/07/2011 04:58 PM, Christian Müller wrote:
Thank you very much Claus of taking care of it.
I'm wondering what the new trunk version
I would like to put my vote behind a 2.10 as it would probably make it outa bit
faster than the a shiney new 3.0 version. These are mainly forselfish reasons
of being able to have camel on jetty 7.6 instead of 7.5.3.There have been
reported instability issues in 7.5.3(1). These instabilityissues
Hi Claus,
karaf uses namings like:
bundle:list
service:list
These are resource oriented what means that the scheme bundle references
a resource type.
camel:route-list
is not resource oriented. camel references a framwork.
camel-route:list
would be more similar to karaf. Of course we can not
Hi
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Christian Schneider
wrote:
>
> I really like the idea of having camel:route and then simply call list or
> start or stop.
>
> We can even do that without the sub shells already by naming the commands
> slightly different.
>
> Instead
> camel:route-list
> camel:c
Hi Christian,
I would wait the subshells and let the commands as it is.
My 2 cents ;)
Regards
JB
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://wwx.talend.com
- Reply message -
From: "Christian Schneider"
To:
Subject: [DISCUSS] - Align Camel karaf
The number of characters per command is the same.
Using tab can save you from typing most characters in both styles.
So I think the focus on resources really makes the difference and I
think it is more natural to think in resources for humans than in commands.
Christian
Am 08.12.2011 10:38, s
Hi,
I prefer that we keep as command family name a short name. "camel" is
fine but "camel-route" or "camel-context" are too long. Imagine when
operating a project on a platform, the number of characters to be typed
on the keyboard. This has an impact which is not negligible.
So why not using
I really like the idea of having camel:route and then simply call list
or start or stop.
We can even do that without the sub shells already by naming the
commands slightly different.
Instead
camel:route-list
camel:context-list
I propose to have:
camel-route:list
camel-context:list
This wo
18 matches
Mail list logo
