Awhile back I sent some email [1] about restructuring server/trunk
into smaller groups of modules organized by function/feature.
I had been waiting for svk2 to be usable enough to manage
restructuring in a branch while pulling in new changes to src files,
and the latest updates to the svk2
This is great! thanks for looking into this!
So far I have only a couple minor quibbles.
-- connector + transaction should be a component
-- I don't understand why you want the "server" in the base groupId.
why not o.a.g.activemq, o.a.g.connector, o.a.g.openejb, etc?
o.a.g.server.client se
On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:50 PM, David Jencks wrote:
This is great! thanks for looking into this!
Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote :-)
So far I have only a couple minor quibbles.
-- connector + transaction should be a component
That should work... though some bits like geronimo
On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:50 PM, David Jencks wrote:
This is great! thanks for looking into this!
So far I have only a couple minor quibbles.
-- connector + transaction should be a component
It might actually turn out that more modules that are currently
listed in framework/* could be moved to
I like your proposal, but this feels like a major change to make in the
last month of a release, when we are just now seeing and fixing Console
bugs and the Samples still need work for 2.0.
Waiting until after M5 (or after CTS setup is finished) to start
changing any of the groupIds could caus
On Apr 3, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I like your proposal, but this feels like a major change to make in
the last month of a release, when we are just now seeing and fixing
Console bugs and the Samples still need work for 2.0.
Waiting until after M5 (or after CTS setup is finished
Went through your (quite interesting) doctoral dissertation and added
some comments inline :-)
Cheers
Prasad.
On 3/30/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Awhile back I sent some email [1] about restructuring server/trunk
into smaller groups of modules organized by function/feature.
I h
On Apr 9, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Went through your (quite interesting) doctoral dissertation and added
some comments inline :-)
:-)
This isn't going to be possible for all of our dependencies, though I
think that if we can move to this model it would help improve the
mainta
Inline below...
-Donald
Jason Dillon wrote:
On Apr 9, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Went through your (quite interesting) doctoral dissertation and added
some comments inline :-)
:-)
This isn't going to be possible for all of our dependencies, though I
think that if we can move
On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
What repositories? Most of these artifacts live in central... and
according to Jason Van Zyl, artifacts in central are never
removed. And he isn't so found of adding extra magical repository
bits to subvert the system.
I was looking at makin
10 matches
Mail list logo
