Yay, just what I needed :). I will start making changes to the other components.
Thanks,
Hadrian
On Apr 1, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Stan Lewis wrote:
> +1 that looks way better...
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> I made to changes from the original version [v99]. In [v
+1 that looks way better...
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> I made to changes from the original version [v99]. In [v100] I consolidated
> the columns are proposed before. In the current [v101] version I changed the
> order of the columns to Name | Required | descripti
Hi Willem, you are correct. I didn't change the second table until we agree on
the format. I'm pretty happy with the way it looks now, but I'll wait for other
opinions before making more changes.
Thanks,
Hadrian
On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Hi Hadrian,
>
> The CXF docu
Hi Hadrian,
The CXF document looks better now, I just check the [v100] I think you
missed the change on the table of relayHeaders.
It still has 5 columns.
Willem
On 4/1/11 10:10 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
I made to changes from the original version [v99]. In [v100] I consolidated the
column
I made to changes from the original version [v99]. In [v100] I consolidated the
columns are proposed before. In the current [v101] version I changed the order
of the columns to Name | Required | description and consolidated the
Description + Default Value + Example together. I believe the latter
Aside from the generation during release:prepare issue [1], for which I have to
do some more releases and drop the artifacts to figure out (unless somebody has
a better idea), I looked at the rendered pdf manual [2] and a few things look
horrific. In particular the Components page [3] is so wide
