In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest
in a MyFaces “Committers and Contributors” meeting.
Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing
to lead a discussion.
I got JBoss to sponsor the meeting and we now have a room
booked for 20-30 people at
I should be there, and could talk about ADF.
-- Adam
On 4/6/06, Stan Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest in a MyFaces
> "Committers and Contributors" meeting.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing
I'll be round, and we can talk about tomahawk a little.
Even though I think we should rather talk about how to do the alignment.
regards,
Martin
On 4/7/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should be there, and could talk about ADF.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 4/6/06, Stan Silvert <[EMAIL PROT
See you there.
Dennis Byrne
>-Original Message-
>From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 08:32 PM
>To: 'MyFaces Development'
>Subject: Re: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
>
>I'll be round, and
Will be there and can tell you some stories about MyFaces history.ManfredOn 4/7/06, Stan Silvert <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest
in a MyFaces "Committers and Contributors" meeting.
Please let me know if you are coming and
It is a pity a cannot join java one this year. With the recent move to
the UK and my wedding :) I have to many things to think on. Hopefully
I can save some money for next year to go there! Anyways, enjoy the
meetings! I don't know if it is possible to record them with video...
so others could see
PMTo: MyFaces DevelopmentSubject: JavaOne MyFaces
Committers/Contributors meeting
In addition to the dinner, it
sounded like there was interest in a MyFaces “Committers and Contributors”
meeting.
Please let me know if you are
coming and if you are willing to lead a
discussion.
Stan Silvert
JBoss, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
From: Stan Silvert
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006
7:54 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: JavaOne MyFaces
Committers/Contributors meeting
In addition to the dinner, it
: Stan Silvert
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 12:46
PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: RE: JavaOne MyFaces
Committers/Contributors meeting
Stan Silvert
JBoss, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
From: Stan Silvert
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Committers/Contributors meeting
In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was
interest in a MyFaces “Committers and Contributors” meeting.
Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing
to lead a discussion.
I got JBoss to sponsor the meeting and we now have a room
>Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5.
>The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI
>we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner.
We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving.
Dennis Byrne
Stan-
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The
decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will
be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be
reassigned to other JSF-related projects.
Which web-container you are u
ere is more cool JSF stuff where that came from.
Best regards,
Stan Silvert
JBoss, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: JavaOne M
5:24 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
>
> Stan-
>
> > Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss
5.
> The
> > decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the
3) JBoss is upping its involvement in the JSF community. I
can't
> say
> > much at this point about that. You probably already know about
JBoss
> Seam,
> > but there is more cool JSF stuff where that came from.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> &g
bout that. You probably already know about
JBoss
Seam,
but there is more cool JSF stuff where that came from.
Best regards,
Stan Silvert
JBoss, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
________
From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
Dennis Byrne schrieb:
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5.
The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI
we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner.
We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving.
Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig
Stan,
will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in
JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put
the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version) in, if that is
desired by the user?
regards,
Martin
On 5/10/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
, May 11, 2006 4:16 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
>
> Stan,
>
> will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in
> JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible t
sday, May 11, 2006 4:16 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
>
> Stan,
>
> will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in
> JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put
>
t
> Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
>
> Stan,
>
> will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in
> JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put
> the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible versio
t; Stan Silvert
> >> JBoss, Inc.
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> callto://stansilvert
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:16 AM
> >> > To: MyFac
On 5/10/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dennis Byrne schrieb:>> Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5.>> The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI>> we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner.
>> We need to branch for 1.2 and
More precisely, you should not be allowed to replace the container's 1.2
implementation with a 1.1 implementation ... that would be like trying to
replace the Servlet 2.5 implementation built in to the container with a
Servlet 2.4 or 2.3 implementation by trying to include the relevant jars of
To
>Anyway, let`s do the JSF 1.2 impl. Java EE 5 will not be part of
>production at big big big customers. so containers like Geronimo or
>OC4J (just to name two) will be able to take the MyFaces JSF 1.2 impl
>to their system
I can't force anyone to share my opinion, but I would like to get a consens
>
> good point. I remember when I tried to replace some JARs inside a
> container (it worked)
> but our QA told me that this will cause problems @ customers`s side.
> They pay much money for a container and replacing JARs can cause loose
> of support form the vendor side.
Even when the customers
Ok, as soon as apache svn is up again I will create a core branch
called "jsf_1_2" so that Stan is able to commit his work.
Dennis, I don't think that a vote is necessary now. Just get the jsf
1.2 stuff up and working (EL, TCK, ...). We will do the vote as soon
as we are ready to merge the new cod
Hi!
> Dennis, I don't think that a vote is necessary now. Just get the jsf
> 1.2 stuff up and working (EL, TCK, ...). We will do the vote as soon
> as we are ready to merge the new code down to the trunk.
How long do we think this might take?
We should be aware that we have to do bug fixing on two
I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the
core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I
know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core
trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this
branch. Do we have firm c
Well, but Stan has coded a lot, so we still want to have this code in.
And from the performance measurements we've done last week, I think
that JBoss might have a reason to switch back to MyFaces as well, if
the RI JSF1.2 implementation isn't improved a lot.
regards,
Martin
On 5/16/06, Sean Sc
Sean Schofield schrieb:
> I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the
> core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I
> know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core
> trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain
+1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue
Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers?
If not, i am
+1 for open a 1.2 branch
On 5/17/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sean Schofield schrieb:
> I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are
By the way, we should add tons of unit tests to the 1.2 stuff as we
go. There is very little unit testing in the current core which has
caused us problems in the past. I suggest we make liberal use of
Craig's shale mock stuff (a few of us have already added it to
tomahawk and impl tests.)
Sean
essage-
> From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM
> To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incomp
t is about half-way done and still works.
Stan Silvert
JBoss, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM
> To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: J
ill works.
>
> Stan Silvert
> JBoss, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> callto://stansilvert
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM
> > To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
that is about half-way done and still works.
> >
> > Stan Silvert
> > JBoss, Inc.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > callto://stansilvert
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday,
the "1.1 way".
> > >
> > > So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl
> > > that is about half-way done and still works.
> > >
> > > Stan Silvert
> > > JBoss, Inc.
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
ent
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> Sean,
> Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to
> /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ?
> After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that.
> Is that ok, Stan?
&
AIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
> -Original Message-
> From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> Sean,
>
Martin Marinschek wrote:
> 1.1 --> branch
> 1.2 Tomcat 6 --> branch
> 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. --> trunk
+1
It might be also great to have more of those "current" virtual
directory, say
branch11
current12tc6
current12tc5 (="current" too)
I'd name both 1.2 "current" as sometimes in the future the tc6 stuf
://stansilvert>> > -Original Message-> > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM> > To: MyFaces Development> > Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> > Committers/Contributors meeting]&g
gt; > think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some
> > dependencies.
> >
> > Stan Silvert
> > JBoss, Inc.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > callto://stansilvert
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: Manfred Ge
more
> > > Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't
> > > think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some
> > > dependencies.
> > >
> > > Stan Silvert
> > > JBoss, Inc.
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> &g
74 is complete except
> > > > > > > > > ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle (). I
> > needed code that reads
> > > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver
&
> >
> > > > > I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is
more
> > > > > Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I
don't
> > > > > think it will be more complicated than adding and removing som
CTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from
Sean.
> > > > > > He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven
> > > > > > repository.
> > > > > >
> > >
regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Craig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
; > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1
(if you
> > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > at the
> > > > > > > > >
; > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would
need to be
> > > > > > > committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow
down the
> > > > >
> > > > > > > branch.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > summary:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > 1.1 -->
t; > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl <[EMAIL PR
m: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:56 PM
>> >To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
>> >Committers/Contributors meeting]
>> >
>> &
until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit
rather than a container.
if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have
their own (public) maven2 repo
-Matthias
What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll
still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result
that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of
a misnoming.
regards,
Martin
On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
>meeting]
>
>What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll
>still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result
>that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too mu
> To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
n agreement that trunk would be for 1.2 . Did I miss
something?
Dennis Byrne
>-Original Message-
>From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 09:00 AM
>To: 'MyFaces Development'
>Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne
nt: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development
> Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance.
> Probably Sunday or Monday.
&
Thank you for this work Stan.
Dennis Byrne
>-Original Message-
>From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM
>To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committe
Byrne
>-Original Message-
>From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM
>To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting]
>
>Done.
>
>A
JBoss, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
callto://stansilvert
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:55 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors me
CTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:55 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> Thanks, Stan.
>
> You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how
> about the backwards c
gt; Cc: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
> Committers/Contributors meeting]
>
> ah, ok... all clear
>
> What about the branches? You did commit to the trunk now, right?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 5/29/06, Stan Silve
gt; >From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM
> >To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces
Committers/Contributors meeting]
> >
> >Done.
> >
> >
gt; Subject: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne
> MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
>
> Thanks Stan,
>
> but you committed the JSF 1.2 stuff (depends on Java5) against the
*head*
> Wasn't there a *plan* to commit that stuff into a brunch f
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:10 AM
> To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled:
JavaOne
> MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
>
> Sorry if I screwed this up. Maybe my lack of SVN knowledge is
catching
l Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Matthias Wessendorf
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:06 AM
> To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne
> MyFaces Committers/Contrib
Hi!
> C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\core>svn info
> Path: .
> URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk
>
>
> I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this subdirectory point
> to trunk?
>
Maybe you copied the .svn directories too?
Ciao,
Mario
e: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled:
JavaOne
> MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
>
> Hi!
> > C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\core>svn info
> > Path: .
> > URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk
> >
> >
> > I
ncelled:
JavaOne
> MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
>
> Hi!
> > C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\core>svn info
> > Path: .
> > URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk
> >
> >
> > I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this su
TED]
> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:27 AM
> > To: MyFaces Development
> > Subject: Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled:
> JavaOne
> > MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
> >
> > Hi!
> > > C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\j
On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
any ideas?
Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete
myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to
myfaces/jsf12tc6.
Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes).
Either merge the ch
Hello,
I think the externals cause the trouble.
Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir:
core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk
mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk
site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk
tomahawk http
looks good.
I'll go forward with this right now.
regards,
Martin
On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I think the externals cause the trouble.
Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir:
core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk
mavenhttp
We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;)
regards,
Martin
On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I think the externals cause the trouble.
Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir:
core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk
mavenhtt
Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk?
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;)
regards,
Martin
On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I think the externals cause the trouble.
Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the j
Ok,
I hope I cleared up my mess again - I went with Wendy's second
suggestion, cause the reverse merging didn't have any effect on my
system, and it's the better option anyways.
Can anyone crosscheck if everything is ok now?
regards,
Martin
P.S.: shouldn't we move off of externals now? Are th
Content Interweaving
invokeOnComponent
regards,
Martin
On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk?
Martin Marinschek schrieb:
> We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 5/29/06, Bernd
Martin,
When you created the original tc6 branch did you copy current? That
would be the only way I could see the externals coming into play. The
*only* external we should have is current. I will look into rolling
back the changes on core since nobody has addressed this yet.
Sean
On 5/29/06,
On 5/29/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When you created the original tc6 branch did you copy current? That
would be the only way I could see the externals coming into play. The
*only* external we should have is current. I will look into rolling
back the changes on core since nob
OK I will answer my own question. Yes that's what you did ...
Author: mmarinschek
Date: Fri May 26 06:00:36 2006
New Revision: 409666
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=409666&view=rev
Log:
made a copy
Added:
myfaces/jsf12tc6/
- copied from r409665, myfaces/current/
This is why we on
Yeah, I did already revert the stuff.
Does anybody know why the merge stuff didn't work? Only the second
option Wendy pointed out worked, even though I used exactly the line
that Bernd proposed... just wondering.
regards,
Martin
On 5/30/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK I will
83 matches
Mail list logo
