On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2011, at 3:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny >wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/19/11 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> >>>
On Aug 20, 2011, at 3:59 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/11 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I'm wonderin
On 8/20/11 12:50 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Emmanuel Lecharnywrote:
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make
things pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior
of y
On 8/20/11 12:59 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharnywrote:
On 8/19/11 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 8/19/11 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>
>> On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make
th
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make
>> things pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior
>> of your service. I'm not sure that i
On 8/19/11 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of you
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Steve Ulrich wrote:
>> Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] wrote:
>>
>> So, what is the scenario that we're trying to support? I imagine
>> appending headers to binary data would be one. In this case is an
>> Array of ByteBuffers really needed? Why not
> Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] wrote:
>
> So, what is the scenario that we're trying to support? I imagine
> appending headers to binary data would be one. In this case is an
> Array of ByteBuffers really needed? Why not just send down one
> ByteBuffer for the header and another
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>> I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make
>>> things pretty complicated and adds another dimension to g
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
>> pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of
>> your service. I'm not sure that it's
On 8/19/11 2:16 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of your
service. I'm not sure that it's necessary.
Definitively a bad idea.
What we need is an abstrac
I'm wondering. Do you guys think it's a good idea? It seems to make things
pretty complicated and adds another dimension to groking the behavior of your
service. I'm not sure that it's necessary.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Alan
13 matches
Mail list logo