Wilson Yeung wrote:
Starting a few days ago, whenever I try to post to the Mina Nabble
Forums, I'm always denied. I've tried subscribing, I've tried
resending, but my message never gets through.
Any ideas?
Yes. We have blocked mails coming from nabble, because we received
direct spam from
The vote has been closed and hare are the results.
Binding +1s (7):
Niklas Gustavsson
Mike Heath
Alex Karasulu
Emmanuel Lécharny
Trustin Lee
Niklas Therning
Julien Vermillard
Non-binding +1s (8):
Maarten Bosteels
Frédéric Brégier
Jeff Genender
Brenno Hayden
Edouard De Oliveira
José Henrique
FYI the board met a couple days ago I think to discuss this specific issue
of third party licenses. We should check and see what they concluded on
this 3rd party licensing matter.
Alex
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike, thanks for your diligence on
hrm. Would this be an API change? If so, do we want it in the 2.0 release?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Rodrigo Madera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't want to be bad here, but are there any plans to actually rethink this
state machine framework to make it friendlier?
Rodrigo
On
Sorry for the confusion, but after re-reading your email I realize
that you are asking the question instead of saying that the state
machine *will* be rethought.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Mark Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hrm. Would this be an API change? If so, do we want it in the
=o)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Mark Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the confusion, but after re-reading your email I realize
that you are asking the question instead of saying that the state
machine *will* be rethought.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Mark Webb [EMAIL
I have been trying to write a MINA system using the state machine
library. As I go through the documentation I think I found an error
that is confusing me. So either I am just simply confused or there is
an error :)
Looking at the diagram, I think the transition from Paused to
Playing should be
Don't want to be bad here, but are there any plans to actually rethink this
state machine framework to make it friendlier?
Rodrigo
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Mark Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been trying to write a MINA system using the state machine
library. As I go through
So, Tapestry 4 ships with OGNL and Javassist,
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/tapestry/tapestry-project-4.1.5-bin.tar.gz
Why is this a problem for MINA?
Javassist can be redistributed under the MPL _or_ under the LGPL. It
doesn't have to be distributed under BOTH, see
Yes! We're OK to release M1. We should definitely make sure we run RAT.
Alex
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Feb 15, 2008 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Cliff's page on 3rd party policy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 15, 2008 6:13 PM, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL
Alex Karasulu wrote:
Yes! We're OK to release M1. We should definitely make sure we run RAT.
Excellent! I guess you can disregard the email I sent 5 minutes ago. :)
So I ran RAT and it threw an exception saying it had too many unknown
licenses. Below the RAT output and I'm not sure what it
Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Feb 15, 2008 4:43 PM, Mike Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does not matter what Tapestry ships with. I'd like to think the Tapestry
PMC is doing the proper diligence before releases. Regardless we cannot
base our decisions on the interpretation of Apache policy by
Hmmnn...I don't think so. As far as I can tell, he's talking about
adding more types to a future MINA release. That would mean adding a
method to each new type -- hardly a high cost given the return. If
you want to make it possible for users to add types, you could simply
have an
13 matches
Mail list logo
