On 8/9/06, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...Yepp, and I think as soon as we have 2.2 out, we should not share these
blocks with 2.1.x anymore as all new features should go to 2.2 only.
2.1.x is then a real maintenance branch where we only do minor
improvements and bugfixing...
Ag
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause
> any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference
> implementation for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
>
+1
-marc=
--
Marc Portier
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
> minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
>
+1
-marc=
--
Marc Portierhttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence
Leszek Gawron wrote:
>
> question 1: why is Constants.COMPLETE_NAME containing 'null
> 2.2.0-M2-SNAPSHOT'?
>
Because I accidentally broke it :( It should be fixed now.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Ralph Goers wrote:
> The folks who are decided to maintain their blocks this way did it with
> the clear understanding that this was the price they would have to pay,
> so I don't think the clarification is necessary. I can recall at least
> one instance where a change to one of these blocks ha
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't
cause any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the
reference implementation for servlet containers, is available since
Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
Ralph
Jason Johnston wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, I have a question.
As I understand it there are several blocks (CForms comes to mind) that
are shared between trunk and the 2.1.x branch via svn:external
properties. Unless I'm mistaken this would prevent the minimum JDK
requirement from bei
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Should the vote be qualified with an "...except for those blocks that
are shared by the 2.1.x branch"?
Good point. BTW, what if we vote to upgrade 2.1. branch to at least
1.4? :-)
That has been discussed and rejected several times.
Ralph
Jason Johnston escribió:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 08:05 -0600, Jason Johnston wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
Thinking about this a bit m
+1
cheers
--
Torsten
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 08:05 -0600, Jason Johnston wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> >
> > As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
> > minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
> >
>
> +1
Thinking about this a bit more, I have a question.
As
On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause any
problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference implementation
for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
--
Peter Hunsberger
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Apart from 'null 2.2.0-M2-SNAPSHOT' and python samples all other XSP
samples work properly. I think we could make a release.
It was a little bit early to tell about the samples working...
--
Leszek Gawron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT Manager
Jorg Heymans wrote:
Jorg Heymans wrote:
Just agreed on this with Reinhard off-list, i'll make the required changes.
ok this is done now. I hope i got the permissions right (g+w and o+w on
all dirs involved, including my home dir).
Can someone please give it a spin ?
I'll give it a try to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: lgawron
Date: Tue Aug 8 13:28:55 2006
New Revision: 429801
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=429801&view=rev
Log:
Hello
This is my first Cocoon page!
With the help of XSP and null 2.2.0-M2-SNAPSHOT ...
question 1: why is Constants.COMPLETE_NAME containing
On 08.08.2006 18:47, Jorg Heymans wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
-0, because this means eliminating cocoon 2.2 on "older" application
servers eg weblogic 8.1.
Frankly, I don't see t
On 08.08.2006 17:33, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*.
+1
Jörg
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I guess that's right, see the code of the FOM_JavascriptInterpreter
line 563 (in trunk):
ThreadScope thrScope = getSessionScope();
synchronized (thrScope) {
ClassLoader savedClassLoader =
Thread.currentThread().
Jean-Baptiste Quenot escribió:
Namely and are known to be broken
in some cases.
Would you provide a test case in order to fix it and avoid a regression
in the future? :-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Jorg Heymans wrote:
> Just agreed on this with Reinhard off-list, i'll make the required changes.
>
ok this is done now. I hope i got the permissions right (g+w and o+w on
all dirs involved, including my home dir).
Can someone please give it a spin ?
Regards
Jorg
* Jorg Heymans:
>
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> >
> > As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
> > minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
> >
>
> -0, because this means eliminating cocoon 2.2 on "older" application
> servers eg weblogic 8.1.
>
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause
> any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference
> implementation for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
>
+1
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> I think the safe way is to first rsync from the zone to a temporary
> location on people.a.o, which is on the same filesystem than the final
> location, then do a move (mv), which is atomic, to the final location
> on people.a.o.
>
> -Bertrand (I'm not being parano
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
> minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
>
-0, because this means eliminating cocoon 2.2 on "older" application
servers eg weblogic 8.1.
Frankly, I don't see the point in
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause
any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference
implementation for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
Vadim
Reinhard Poetz skrev:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't
cause any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the
reference implementation for servlet containers, is available since
Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
/Daniel
Reinhard Poetz skrev:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
/Daniel
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 17:33 +0200, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause any
> problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference implementation
> for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
--
Bruno Dumon
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:14 +0200, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the minimum
> requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source,
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause
any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference
implementation for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
+!
--
Leszek Gawron
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the minimum
> requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
>
+1
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause any
> problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference implementation
> for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
>
+1
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group,
On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*...
+1
-Bertrand
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1735?page=comments#action_12426608
]
Antonio Gallardo commented on COCOON-1735:
--
Thanks for the feedback Jean-Baptiste, hence we should not deprecate Jtidy,
because we don't have a repleace
Reinhard Poetz escribió:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't
cause any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the
reference implementation for servlet containers, is available since
Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause
any problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference
implementation for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
+1
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Tra
I propose switching to servlet API 2.4 in *trunk*. This shouldn't cause any
problems as a stable version of Tomcat (5.0.16), the reference implementation
for servlet containers, is available since Dec, 4th 2003.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Softw
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1735?page=comments#action_12426605
]
Jean-Baptiste Quenot commented on COCOON-1735:
--
Neko is really different as it outputs XML (XHTML without the namespace),
whereas Tidy outputs XHTML
On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the minimum
requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1 (assuming this is a separate vote?)
--
Peter Hunsberger
Hi,
I understand the concerns and I agree to keep the binding framework
backward compatible. It is important for our current user base moving
from older cocoon versions. Usually, adding a new attribute for handling
the new required behavior is the way how we have been resolving this
things be
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1735?page=comments#action_12426602
]
Antonio Gallardo commented on COCOON-1735:
--
Jean-Baptiste, did you tried if Neko to avoid the bug parsing in jtidy?
> Update Jtidy
>
>
>
Reinhard Poetz escribió:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
Here is my 1 year old "+1" ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Mark Lundquist wrote:
Hi,
I posted this on the users list a few days ago, but never got a
definitive answer (I did find out that this is *not* the case for
javaflow :-), but that's not really an answer... I want to know if it
*is* the case for flowscript).
cheers,
—ml
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1735?page=comments#action_12426582
]
Reinhard Poetz commented on COCOON-1735:
As we have Neko I would be in favour of deprecating all JTidy stuff in 2.1.x
and remove it in 2.2.
> Update Jti
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications,
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I will start a vote on the JDK and the servlet API versions as we
need a formal agreement about this IMO.
We used to poll user list last time we changed JDK requirements. It
may make sense to do same n
On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2 years
ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?
Quoting Bruno from the Daisy list, I'd say that we can benefit from some new
features too: "... we can make use of features
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1735?page=comments#action_12426580
]
Jean-Baptiste Quenot commented on COCOON-1735:
--
There is no official release since 6 years.
See http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_i
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
Ralph Goers wrote:
You should start a Vote thread for Java 5 and servlet 2.4.
Never mind. I see you already did.
Ralph
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
Ralph
You should start a Vote thread for Java 5 and servlet 2.4.
Ralph
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2
years ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?
Quoting Bruno from the Daisy list, I'd say that we can benefit from
some new features
On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the minimum
requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
-Bertrand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Having said enough about his functional skills I also want to mention that he
is a great guy with a good sense of humor. I'm sure that we as community will
be stronger in every respect with Ard being a com
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I will start a vote on the JDK and the servlet API versions as we
need a formal agreement about this IMO.
We used to poll user list last time we changed JDK requirements. It
may make sense to do same now.
Your mail arrived
* Vadim Gritsenko:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> > I will start a vote on the JDK and the servlet API versions as
> > we need a formal agreement about this IMO.
>
> We used to poll user list last time we changed JDK
> requirements. It may make sense to do same now.
You're right, it's
* Marc Portier:
> Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
>
> > I'd advise to write the binding using or
> > which is much more reliable.
>
> .. or even: don't use the binding framework and write proper
> cform-instance-traversal code in custom classes or flowscript
I second that.And wit
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I will start a vote on the JDK and the servlet API versions as we need
a formal agreement about this IMO.
We used to poll user list last time we changed JDK requirements. It may
make sense to do same now.
Your mail arrived a second after I sent t
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the
minimum requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
+1
--
Leszek Gawron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT Manager MobileB
As Java 5 was released almost 2 years ago, I propose making it the minimum
requirement for trunk and all artifacts released from there.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I will start a vote on the JDK and the servlet API versions as we need a
formal agreement about this IMO.
We used to poll user list last time we changed JDK requirements. It may make
sense to do same now.
Vadim
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
* Reinhard Poetz:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
So far I've released 4 blocks. Compared to the enormous amount
of blocks that we have it's not a lot, but a beginning. So
please, everybody who needs other blocks than ajax, forms,
template and apples, have a look a
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
* Jean-Baptiste Quenot:
* Reinhard Poetz:
What would be the benifits?
Servlet listeners are an example.
Oh no sorry, that was already in servlet 2.3.
See http://java.sun.com/dtd/
What is the current servlet requirement? I remember it w
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
> * Jean-Baptiste Quenot:
>
>> * Reinhard Poetz:
>>
>>> What would be the benifits?
>> Servlet listeners are an example.
>
> Oh no sorry, that was already in servlet 2.3.
>
> See http://java.sun.com/dtd/
>
> What is the current servlet requirement? I remember it was
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
> Hello Marc,
>
> I understand your concern. Here is the reply I made on the JIRA
> issue:
>
> Just my opinion but this XML-based CForms binding API has a number
> of inconsistencies and bugs. I doubt that we will ever be able to
> find a syntax that fits all u
* Jean-Baptiste Quenot:
> * Reinhard Poetz:
>
> > What would be the benifits?
>
> Servlet listeners are an example.
Oh no sorry, that was already in servlet 2.3.
See http://java.sun.com/dtd/
What is the current servlet requirement? I remember it was
servlet 2.2 in Cocoon 2.1.X
--
Jean-Ba
* Reinhard Poetz:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> >What about moving to servlet 2.4 as well?
+1
> What would be the benifits?
Servlet listeners are an example.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2 years
ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?
+1 (but we should not start refactor all the code *now* to Java 5)
agreed
What about moving to servlet 2.4 as well?
What woul
* Reinhard Poetz:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> > So far I've released 4 blocks. Compared to the enormous amount
> > of blocks that we have it's not a lot, but a beginning. So
> > please, everybody who needs other blocks than ajax, forms,
> > template and apples, have a look at the blocks
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2 years
> ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?
+1 (but we should not start refactor all the code *now* to Java 5)
What about moving to servlet 2.4 as well?
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Sour
* Jean-Baptiste Quenot:
> Just my opinion but this XML-based CForms binding API has a number
> of inconsistencies and bugs.
Namely and are known to be broken
in some cases.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
Hello Marc,
I understand your concern. Here is the reply I made on the JIRA
issue:
Just my opinion but this XML-based CForms binding API has a number
of inconsistencies and bugs. I doubt that we will ever be able to
find a syntax that fits all use-cases. I'd advise to write the
binding u
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1687?page=comments#action_12426523
]
Jean-Baptiste Quenot commented on COCOON-1687:
--
Just my opinion but this XML-based CForms binding API has a number of
inconsistencies and bugs. I d
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
So far I've released 4 blocks. Compared to the enormous amount of blocks
that we have it's not a lot, but a beginning. So please, everybody who
needs other blocks than ajax, forms, template and apples, have a look at
the blocks and start a vote if you think it is ready t
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
So far I've released 4 blocks. Compared to the enormous amount of blocks
that we have it's not a lot, but a beginning. So please, everybody who
needs other blocks than ajax, forms, template and apples, have a look at
the blocks and start a vote if you think it is ready t
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 09:25 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ...What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2
> > years
> > ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?..
>
> I'm ok as long as 2.1.x continues to
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Marc Portier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...since the mentioned fix however the effect of the 'null' in the 'text'
>> field is that the complete element gets removed (since that executes the
>> removePath() on ".")...
>
> Sounds like a bug to me, remo
On 8/8/06, Marc Portier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...since the mentioned fix however the effect of the 'null' in the 'text'
field is that the complete element gets removed (since that executes the
removePath() on ".")...
Sounds like a bug to me, removing an element because an attribute is
nul
Hi there,
being late on upgrading some cforms sites I recently noticed an
incompatibility introduced in cocoon 2.1.9
since I'm unsure about the best way to handle, I just reopened the
jira-issue that ported the patch which led us here
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON-1687?page=
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2
years ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?
Quoting Bruno from the Daisy list, I'd say that we can benefit from some
new features too: "... we can make use of features like generics, the
enhanced
Reinhard Poetz skrev:
What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2
years ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?
Quoting Bruno from the Daisy list, I'd say that we can benefit from
some new features too: "... we can make use of features like generics,
the enhanced
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ...What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost
>> _2 years
>> ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?..
>
> I'm ok as long as 2.1.x continues to run on JDK 1.4 (which shouldn't
> be a
Jorg Heymans wrote:
> ...The only thing i'm still unsure about is how to do the sync between the
> zone and people.a.o, rsync might not work too well given the metadata
> that's involved
Note that, IMHO, you shouldn't rsync directly into the people.a.o
directories that are rsynced to the
On 8/8/06, Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...What do people think about making Java 5, which was released almost _2 years
ago_, the minimum requirement for trunk?..
I'm ok as long as 2.1.x continues to run on JDK 1.4 (which shouldn't
be a problem as 2.1.x is not supposed to evolve m
85 matches
Mail list logo
