I’m in favor of a transition release where we warn with the big bright warnings
that in the next release, we’ll be switching to the jQuery infrastructure by
default. I would also suggest adding a means of determining whether people are
using the out-of-the-box prototype configuration and adding
+1 (non-binding)
Robert
GATAATGCTATTTCTTTAACGAA
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> If you haven't been noticing, Jochen has been putting in a lot of time on
> Tapestry; closing bugs, leading discussions, and mentoring people on the
> mailing list. He's been at it a
I can see optionmodelimpl being a hotspot if it is being rendered on a page
with many selects, or selects with many options since methods within will be
invoked once per option.
Robert
GATAATGCTATTTCTTTAACGAA
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:11 AM, "Lance (JIRA)" wrote:
>
>
>[
> https://is
Was the profiling done in an app that was using the database in a realistic
manner? I'd be surprised if string.format really matters all that much in a
real-world scenario. And I'm not sure the I improvements in throughput posted
by the original poster are enough to justify switching out the ent
Not a bug. Defaults are allowed to supply either a literal default or a
binding. The binding's "get" will evaluate to an object of the proper type.
In fact, if memory serves, when you supply a literal value, tapestry wraps that
in a "literal binding" anyway, because under the hood, all of thos
+1
GATAATGCTATTTCTTTAACGAA
> On May 12, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> Well, obviously, we haven't managed the issue list very well, and it got a
> bit out of control.
>
> I'm in favor of closing them; they've had over a year to sit and gather
> attention.
>
> We have more
Not opposed to an upgrade to Java 8, but not sure 5.4 is the right time for it.
5.4 has been long-enough in coming that I feel it would be better to release
5.4, and use 5.5 as the java8 upgrade, possibly with a fairly short release
time between 5.4 and 5.5. Basically, 5.5 could be “5.4 with jav
+1 (non-binding)
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12/45:30 PM , Kalle Korhonen
wrote:
> Kalle Korhonen: +1 (non-binding)
>
> (It's a vote whether to create a tag to vote on - sure, I'll vote for that)
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
>> This is a vote, open to all commit
+1 (non-binding).
Robert
On Jul 3, 2013, at 7/32:43 PM , Kalle Korhonen
wrote:
> Lance Semmens (aka Lance Java) has been one of the most active members on
> the user list for the past two years. I've personally committed a few
> patches from him and he is the maintainer of tapestry-stitch (
>
I think I can find some time over the course of this week to go through the
list of tickets.
Robert
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12/178:31 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Well, we need some plan to tame the list. It's so cluttered that its hard
> to find important things to work on. There's lots of du
Robert Zeigler: +1 (non-binding)
On Aug 20, 2012, at 8/201:30 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Massimo has clearly demonstrated all the requirements for being a PMC
> member, and then some: he has been contributing code, bug fixes, and
> documentation; he has been actively mentoring use
But in the case of interfaces, if you've misspelled the method name, the
compiler will complain that you haven't implemented the interface...
That said, I'm not sold by the argument of "@Override is for overriding of
concrete methods" since you can use @Override for overriding abstract methods.
sanahalli Village,
> Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli,
> Bangalore 560087, Karnataka State, India
> www.symphonysv.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Zeigler [mailto:robert.zeig...@roxanemy.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:14 PM
> To: Tapestry dev
FWIW, I have run mixed T3/T5 apps. That's probably your best "upgrade" path:
gradually convert your T3 pages & components to T5, meanwhile, run the
side-by-side.
Since T3 runs as a servlet and T5 as a servlet filter, they play together
nicely. You have to do a little work to make them talk to e
Hm. Just noticed this:
BeanModelSourceImpl.java:
...
public BeanModel create(Class beanClass, boolean
filterReadOnlyProperties, Messages messages)
{
assert beanClass != null;
assert messages != null;
...
Why are we using assertions to check the arguments? Even in java 6,assertions
are
+1.
Robert
On Jan 13, 2012, at 1/1312:20 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I would like to see the Tapestry home page "go black" on January 18th,
> to show solidarity with everyone else who is opposed to this
> legislation.
>
> I'm thinking of changing the landing page to be white on black, with
on, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Robert Zeigler
> wrote:
>> Is it worth including notes about 3rd party updates to 5.3 compatibility
>> (chenille-kit, tynamo, etc.)?
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2012, at 1/910:26 AM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>>
>>>
Is it worth including notes about 3rd party updates to 5.3 compatibility
(chenille-kit, tynamo, etc.)?
Robert
On Jan 9, 2012, at 1/910:26 AM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> This is what I have so far:
>
> Tapestry is a component-based Java web framework that combines high
> performance, extensibi
That is not the right version. You want:
http://svn.codehaus.org/chenillekit/trunk
Robert
On Dec 13, 2011, at 12/1312:36 PM , Paulo Ricardo Ribeiro wrote:
> Hello Massimo,
>
> I have one question,
>
> the jira mentions the version: "1.3.0", but the sources that I've downloaded
> (from here
Just curious about the decision to de-localize service exception messages in
favor of hard-coded strings...?
At least, that's what the recent spate of commits seem to do...
Robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapest
I would really love to get in some of the datepicker improvements that have
been filed recently, but I won't have time for it in the next week or so, and
definitely not this weekend,so they'll have to wait for 5.4!
Robert
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10/275:29 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I think I
Good catch!
Committed now.
Robert
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10/258:53 AM , Dragan Sahpaski wrote:
>> The @BindParameter annotation should support inherited
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additiona
No. The js library for tapx-datefield is LGPL'ed, so it cannot be distributed
with the core tapestry release.
That said, "too numerous to mention" isn't very helpful in improving the
current default datepicker. Could you elaborate on at least a few of the
problems you've encountered? I've used
I've been thinking about this for a bit.
I think I would rather see component default revamped more flexibly.
For instance, if we had a sort of "ComponentDefaultProvider" service. This
would be used by ParameterWorker to find a default binding for parameters.
It would likely be a chain of comma
Please file an issue for at least the second issue (whitespace isn't ignored
after expressions). That's definitely a regression, and caused by my recent
changes to the expansion parsing.
Robert
On Sep 14, 2011, at 9/1410:14 AM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> These looks like legitimate issues to
Aha! That's why I missed them. :) Thanks... keep forgetting about the groovy
tests!
Robert
On Sep 12, 2011, at 9/1212:48 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Robert Zeigler
> wrote:
>> I was looking into the alerts system, for 1633 (hard c
I was looking into the alerts system, for 1633 (hard coded "Dismiss all"
label). I found the "Alerts Demo" page, but I haven't been able to find any
tests that use the Alerts Demo page...? Or any tests, period, of the alerts
system, for that matter. I can't believe the alerts system would be ad
Sure... in fact, it would be a fairly simple matter to create such a service
and interface. Define your interface with whatever methods you want, then your
implementation class injects the registry and gets the objects from the
registry, or else injects the objects directly and returns them.
I
Um... last time I checked, Grid, GridRows, and Loop all operate on lists of
objects, so if this is the argument, then the philosophy is inconsistently
applied. In fact, Grid makes it's determination based on the "row" parameter.
And AjaxFormLoop /does/ provide a default value encoder (iff you'
On Aug 19, 2011, at 8/198:56 PM , Bob Harner wrote:
> Does anyone know why half of the built-in Tapestry 5 components that
> take an "encoder" parameter are NOT set up to be able to use a
> "contributed" ValueEncoder (that is, one configured with
> contributeValueEncoderSource() in AppModule clas
We've discussed this in the past. The general consensus was that many users
were using log4j, and it was better to leave that as the default. Either way
you can exclude the logging dependency and substitute your favorite package.
But it was a matter of which way would make more users exclude the
Such as (smslant*):
__ __
/_ __/__ ___ ___ / /___ __ / __/ |_ /
/ / / _ `/ _ \/ -_|_- \
\/___/\/_/\/___/
\ \_\ /\___/
\/_/
Robert Zeigler: +1 (non-binding)
On Aug 18, 2011, at 8/1812:04 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> It seems like we're ready to switch to a beta release. This would
> indicate that we should shift focus from major disruptive changes
> towards filling in gaps and fixing bugs (and doc
If we go beta now, is that a feature freeze on trunk and the creation of a 5.4
branch for new features? That's what I would advocate, but...
Robert
On Aug 16, 2011, at 8/165:55 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Just seeing if there are any objections to starting a lazy-consensus
> stability vote
Hm... not sure how complete it is yet. Right now, there's a mix of code still
being defined/used in tapestry.js, as well as material in, eg, t5-spi.js.
Eg: right now, t5-spi.js defines "T5.ajax.request", but it's not actually
implemented, so the rest of the js is still using Tapestry.ajaxReques
Hm... that won't work b/c t:validate="required, min=prop:total" won't fly
because the "prop" binding prefix would have to be at the beginning of the
string... and specifying the validator as a String property won't work either,
sadly (is there a JIRA for that?).
You're going to need to create t
Close, but no dice! :)
Robert
On Aug 16, 2011, at 8/163:37 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Robert Zeigler
> wrote:
>> Hm... did my (non-binding) vote not make it to the list?
>
> Was it formatted as I requested?
>
>>
>
Hm... did my (non-binding) vote not make it to the list?
In any event, welcome, Taha!
Robert
On Aug 16, 2011, at 8/163:32 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>> Taha has been quite active over the last several months blogging,
>> evangali
Since this failure just started being reported, it's likely that it relates to
recent changes, probably the changes I made to fix tap5-1408 and Tap5-1409.
I'll look into it.
Robert
GATAATGCTATTTCTTTAACGAA
On Aug 13, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> 2011/8/13 françois facon :
>
I disagree with your assessment of mixins. Mixins are primarily tied to the
component lifecycle, not to specific component implementations. There are
certainly some mixins that can't be universally applied (eg: they may assume
that the component is a ClientElement which may or may not be true)
Taha's definitely been a great asset to the community.
+1 (non-binding)
Robert
On Aug 12, 2011, at 8/1212:45 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Taha has been quite active over the last several months blogging,
> evangalizing, mentoring on the mailing list, and doing all the other
> things that c
Aaand... I didn't mean to commit AjaxTests of
FormFragmentExplicitVisibleBoundsDemo yet, either. *sigh* Not quite awake yet
today, sorry.
Robert
On Aug 12, 2011, at 8/129:16 AM , robertdzeig...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: robertdzeigler
> Date: Fri Aug 12 14:16:03 2011
> New Revision: 1157117
Whoops... didn't mean to commit that change, sorry. I hadn't yet downloaded
1.0-milestone-4 (or -3) and commented it out just to get the build running so I
could finish the ticket.
Robert
On Aug 12, 2011, at 8/128:45 AM , Igor Drobiazko wrote:
> This change is not needed as an upgrade to 1.0-
I'll look into this. It may be that all of the tests that I wrote for it use
component parameters, so I'll add one or more new tests using expansions and
see what's going on.
Pretty sure Howard's hunch is spot on.
Robert
On Aug 8, 2011, at 8/84:42 PM , Igor Drobiazko wrote:
> The prop express
One other thing I'd like to get into 5.3 is a fix for TAP5-1558 (more
fine-grained control over when to be considered visible/invisible for form
fragment).
That might involve tweaking some js api's, which would probably be better done
before beta.
Robert
On Jul 26, 2011, at 7/2611:20 AM , Howa
... Why?
Don't get me wrong... YAML, etc. are great for some things, but... we're
ultimately generating (x)html documents. I like the fact that the templates
are xhtml. Even looking at an example of, eg, haml:
#profile
.left.column
#date= print_date
#address= current_user.address
I've started looking at the date picker bugs (TAP5-1408, TAP5-1409). I'd like
to get those resolved.
There is a contributed "patch" that I'm not super happy with; some of the code
changes are useable (the code for closing the picker), some not so much, and no
tests.
But I'd like to get those in
+1.
I'd much rather just have the exceptions percolate up to the browser. Firefox
(via Firebug) and Webkit-based browsers (native) both have fantastic javascript
debugging capabilities*, and those capabilities are only ever hindered by
blackbird.
Robert
* I've heard IE is getting better, too
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tapestry/tapestry5/tags/releases/5.2.6/
Looks like the maint-5-2 directory (and all subdirectories) was copied in to
the tag, so there's a duplicate of every file in the tag: one at the right
place, and one under maint-5-2.
Reasonably certain that's not delibera
+1 (non-binding)
Robert
On Jun 29, 2011, at 6/294:31 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Massimo has been quite active on the Tapestry mailing lists for quite
> some time; he's also very involved in developer discussions and on the
> JIRA. He's very keen on becoming a committer, focusing (at least
>
+1 (non-binding)
Robert
On Jun 29, 2011, at 6/292:03 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Tapestry versioning structure as currently implemented in problematic
> for several reasons:
> 1. We vote and release non-final artifacts, which goes against the
> established model set by the board.
> 2. We hav
I was initially opposed to the "alpha, beta, final" naming, but after having a
conversation with some tapestry developers yesterday who thought that 5.3.0 was
a final/stable release (rather than an alpha, subject to, eg, api changes for
new features, etc.) has convinced me otherwise.
+1
Robert
I'm content with calling it 5.3.0. It's the first release on the 5.3 code
base. Even calling something "final" is kinda weird, imo. Like, 5.2.5 was
"final"...except we released 5.2.6... The only way to declare something final
is retrospectively: look, we didn't make any more 5.0 releases; I g
Yeah, sorry, I spoke too late. I'll get the fixes into trunk and then we can
backport them from there, depending on need.
Robert
On Jun 22, 2011, at 6/226:16 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Robert Zeigler
> wrote:
>> I think it's fair
I think it's fair to look at 1408 & 1409... they need to be fixed in trunk, as
well, but it would be nice for them to be fixed for 5.2 users in the meantime.
I looked over the revised date picker, but still evaluating; it'll be later
tonight before I can make sure it's really correct.
Also, TAP
That's definitely been an issue for me. Not from the CLI, but trying to use,
eg, intellij.
Robert
On Jun 21, 2011, at 6/217:25 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I think one of the issue with our build is that we have a subproject,
> "tapestry-annotations" that generates an artifact,
> "org.apach
the fix forward to 5.3?
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Robert Zeigler
> wrote:
>> It would be nice to get the form fragment issue I opened recently fixed,
>> because you can't have nested form fragments without it.
>>
>> I'm planning on doing it,
It would be nice to get the form fragment issue I opened recently fixed,
because you can't have nested form fragments without it.
I'm planning on doing it, but I've run into some snags with the gradle build
locally that I'm trying to sort through.
Robert
On Jun 21, 2011, at 6/214:33 PM , Howa
Is there some reason why T5.2.5's form fragment event handlers for
Tapestry.CHANGE_VISIBILITY_EVENT and Tapestry.HIDE_AND_REMOVE_EVENT don't call
event.stop? Without that, the event continues to propagate and so you can't
have nested form fragments, because making the inner fragment invisible wi
+0.
I won't have time to properly evaluate the artifacts, but I've been using trunk
in some personal projects and a release seems reasonable.
Robert
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6/158:57 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I've created and uploaded a release of Tapestry 5.3.0, ready to be
> voted upon.
>
I'm still wrapping my head around the guts of the (new) transformation code,
new ParameterWorker implementation, etc. However, it appears that we have a
timing problem on the default parameter initialization when component
inheritance is in play. Basically, the child-class parameters have their
+1 (non-binding).
Robert
On Jun 1, 2011, at 6/16:57 AM , Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Bob has been extremely active contributing to our documentation and website
> in the past. It's a
> shame that we haven't made him a committer earlier ;)
>
> Vote to run for 72 hours.
>
> Ulrich Stärk: +1 (binding)
There's technically a plugin available for IntelliJ, although I found it
faster/easier to use command-line gradle rather than the plugin.
Robert
On May 24, 2011, at 5/247:38 AM , Igor Drobiazko wrote:
> As far as I know there is no plugin available that provides a comparable
> functionality as
I was going to update the 5.3.0 release notes, but it appears I don't have
permission to edit the wiki? CLA should already be on file since I'm a
committer... userid: ongakugainochi.
Robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr
Is there some specific reason why addParameter is (String,String) rather than
(String,Object)? Couldn't PageRenderLinkSource use ValueEncoderSource to encode
the provided object to string automatically?
Just thinking.
Or maybe we keep the current implementation so a user can provide an exact
s
Agreed. Especially when there are many modules, having a consistent release #
for all compatible modules is a good thing. I suppose you could get somewhat
complicated and do a "tapestry-hibernate-5.2.4.n". Which is compatible with
5.2.4 but allows sub projects to release updates independent of
ore creating new sub-modules? Or is it a better
> to ask forgiveness than permission thing?
>
> I'm for having more modules, in case that wasn't obvious before.
> Possibly for experimental modules we could have a incubator project...
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:40 P
The thread on tapestry modules got me thinking a bit...
Awhile back, Kevin Menard and I started an integration library between tapestry
and cayenne (http://cayenne.apache.org). I know Kevin was hoping this would
eventually move to be an "official" tapestry module (rather than 3rd party),
but I
+1 to leaner, lighter-weight modules, and a maven dependency that has all
(almost?) of the tapestry modules as dependencies. Becomes easier to pick and
choose at that point; you can explicitly include a small number of modules, or
depend on tapestry-kitchensink and exclude a few pieces that you
Also in favor of a separate tapestry subproject. The fact that there are
multiple pieces (service(s), component(s), js, etc.) all coordinating together
really makes it sound like this is appropriate as a standalone module, outside
of core.
Robert
On Jan 20, 2011, at 1/202:44 PM , Thiago H. d
Not a compile dependency, that I'm aware of. How many users start with the
quickstart as a basis for new projects? If that's a large percentage, couldn't
we move the log4j dependency declaration into the generated pom? Then it's even
easier to change for people who want to change it, and remove
+1. Even having followed the transition between the various 5.2.x versions, it
would be useful to have all of the changes/release notes for the version in a
single place.
Robert
On Jan 18, 2011, at 1/1811:11 AM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I'm starting to think that release notes would be mor
in it
> is, especially w.r.t. creating releases.
>
> It also gets in the way of creating new subprojects.
>
> Maven is a sunk cost and you don't keep throwing resources at a sunk cost
> just because its cost you in the past.
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Robert
I haven't used gradle. I'm sure it's wonderful. I'm sure it beats the heck
out of using maven.
But. Do we really need to change build methodology /again/? We have a build.
It works. It's not always the nicest thing in the world to work with*, but it
works. People are familiar with it. Too
r isn't required at runtime (if users dont need its
> features)... if that's not
> possible, then i'm slightly leaning to having a separate project
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 18:36, Robert Zeigler wrote:
>> I'll offer a dissenting voice. :) I think it's not
I'll offer a dissenting voice. :) I think it's not onerous for people who want
them to add a dependency, but adding them directly to IOC introduces a
potentially unwanted dependency to people who have no interest in using them.
The jar may be small, but a lot of all, inused jars adds up quickly
Agreed. The vote wasn't on whether to release; 5.2.4 is released. The vote
was to call 5.2.4 stable.
I think it's pointless to call 5.2.4 GA if we know there's going to be a bug
fix release 2 days later. It's saying: "Hi, here's a stable product. Except,
we know it's not exactly stable in ev
+1 (non-binding).
I've been using 5.2.4 in several of my projects with no issues.
Robert
On Dec 10, 2010, at 12/1012:09 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Tapestry 5.2.4 has been out and available for a couple of weeks now and no
> show-stopper bugs have been identified. I think it is time to decl
I'd rather wait one more week, with a corresponding reminder/push on the user
list to encourage people to try out 5.2.1. I'm not sure how many people have
really had a chance to "pound" the 5.2.1 release; I know I haven't.
So I'd rather encourage people to do so and defer the release. I know we
True, but if you ever find that a "ReloadAware" service needs to be aware of
"startupOnReload" or some such, then you either have to craft a new interface
(confusing, since this interface is "ReloadAware"...) or add the method to this
interface (yuck: not backwards compatible, and services that
+1 (non-binding)
Robert
On Sep 2, 2010, at 9/24:34 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Josh Canfield has been very active in the Tapestry community for quite
> some time; he was an early evangalist for Tapestry 5 and has deployed
> multiple Tapestry 5 applications. He's also been very active in the
"
>> is only for development and you will never override the FactoryDefault's
>> value in ApplicationDefaults.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Robert Zeigler wrote:
>>
>>> I love live service implementation reloading, and I would hat
I love live service implementation reloading, and I would hate to have to
explicitly enable it for every service I create. I'm in favor of the "global
on/off switch" as proposed by, eg, Michal Gruca. I'm not sure if it would be
feasible to have a global "off" and then an enableReloading() call
Does:
binder.bind(Interface.class, Implementation.class).preventReloading();
not do the trick?
It's already disabled for services that use buildXXX since Tapestry won't know
the implementation class of the service.
Robert
On Aug 11, 2010, at 8/115:40 PM , Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
Is service construction really so expensive? After all, we're doing exactly
that for page/component reloading (throw away all loaded pages/components if a
change to any of them occur), and I suspect that pages and components are
considerably more expensive to construct than services? Given that
+0 (non-binding).
I've been using 5.2.0-SNAPSHOT with no issues, and enjoying it. Having some
issues with a class not found exception (UpdateListener) when trying to use the
maven artifacts, but this is most likely an error in my build, so +0.
Robert
On Aug 4, 2010, at 8/41:04 PM , Howard Lew
I've been using for awhile now in several different projects of mine; no
complaints here.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2010, at 7/273:03 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I'm ready I think; just gathering pre-vote opinions.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for
Robert Zeigler: +1 (non-binding)
On Jul 14, 2010, at 7/142:23 PM , Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Robin has continued to provide valuable contributions to Tapestry in the form
> of a new logo, a slogan and two new website designs, one of which is
> currently being integrated into our new we
I just reread the e-mail and realized you were saying the exact opposite...
that the contributions methods should be the superset of the services...
whereas I was thinking it made sense for the service's markers to be a superset
of the contribution's markers. But if you just changed the equals
Does seem like that should be the case.
Just considering contributions to services in TapestryModule, you would have
to have @Core + any other markers to any contribution that you wanted to make
by Marker. containsAll seems like a more sensible alternative, although I'm
still thinking about wh
+1 (non-binding)
Robert
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6/213:16 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> In case anyone's missed, Ulrich has been doing a stellar job of
> organizing many different efforts within Tapestry of late; including
> work on the new documentation system and the new logo. He's been doing
> t
I'm definitely a #23 fan over #21, sorry Andreas. #23 feels more subtle to
more, and #21 more awkward.
Robert
On Jun 16, 2010, at 6/165:22 PM , Andreas Andreou wrote:
> on the other hand, i almost hate #23 - the rotated squares miss
> stability and the unicorn appears as it's
> ready to fall do
+0 (non-binding). I would still rather see individual votes for each PMC
member rather than an aggregated vote.
Robert
On Jun 8, 2010, at 6/86:55 PM , Andreas Andreou wrote:
> The vote is to remove the following inactive members
>
> David Solis
> Kent Tong
> Geoffrey Longman
> Mind Bridge
> P
In theory, it seems like this should be possible. Given how HLS has described
the new system, the two systems should be orthogonal.
It would be ugly, though, to have two systems. Still, I'm personally +1 in
keeping the existing URLRewriting system, but deprecating for the 5.2-series
release, a
Other than having a branch (or separate diredtory) for 5.0 vs. 5.1 vs. 5.2, I
don't see the approach of having separate documentation for each sub-release as
being taxing. Quite the opposite: it seems to be that being sure to document
when a feature was introduced, removed (String service id in
-1 (non-binding).
It may be messier/take longer, but I would prefer to vote on a case-by-case
basis rather than lumping all of the "inactive" PMC members together.
Robert
On May 31, 2010, at 5/318:22 AM , Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> The vote is to clean up the list of PMC members and remove the memb
Never used the feature, myself.
Robert
On May 21, 2010, at 5/212:56 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> One of the stumbling blocks people hit continually is injection into
> services. Often people want to inject strings, say:
>
> public class MyServiceImpl implements MyService {
>
> public MySer
+1 (non-binding).
Robert
On May 19, 2010, at 5/198:41 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Robin has been very busy with a visible project (Wooki and its
> spun-off libraries) and a ton of mentoring on the mailing lists. He's
> definitely someone who can code, can mentor, and can evangelize. He's
> s
+1 (non-binding).
Robert
On May 11, 2010, at 5/:12 AM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
Given the efforts that Igor has put into Tapestry, both within the
code base, mentoring on the mailing list, and in book form, I think
it's a terrible omission that he is not a PMC member. I think it is
time t
d probably be fine to proceed as-is, although I suspect a lot of
people use chenille-kit.
Robert
On May 4, 2010, at 5/43:59 PM , Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
Point taken. How may 3rd party libraries do, in fact, have slashes in
the virtual folder name?
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Robert Zeigle
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
