On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Juiceman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Zero3 wrote:
>> Juiceman skrev:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Zero3 wrote:
Juiceman skrev:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Zero3
> wrote:
>> Juiceman skrev:
>>> I'm working on the up
Currently we distribute our installer using a name such as
FreenetInstaller-1223.exe but we call it 0.7.5 I suggest we use the
nomenclature FreenetInstaller-0.7.5.1223.exe that is more in line with
what appears to be standard amongst many applications.
Thoughts?
--
I may disagree with what you
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Juiceman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Zero3 wrote:
>> Juiceman skrev:
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Zero3 wrote:
Juiceman skrev:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Zero3 wrote:
>> Juiceman skrev:
>>> I'm working on the update.cm
Currently we distribute our installer using a name such as
FreenetInstaller-1223.exe but we call it 0.7.5 I suggest we use the
nomenclature FreenetInstaller-0.7.5.1223.exe that is more in line with
what appears to be standard amongst many applications.
Thoughts?
--
I may disagree with what you
nregistered. An ordinary UserAlert
is added once and it may also be unregistered once. An event may be
registered several times, but only the latest event is display. If the
event is unregistered the next event registered will be displayed. For
the Announcer this means that if the user dismisses the latest
annoucement-event, tha next announcement-event registered will still be
displayed. There should be to different ways to unregister an event.
One would stop all future registered events of the type from
being displayed. The other would only removes the latest registered
event, future registed events are not stoped.
A solution to this would be to remove the isEvent()-function and
create a subinterface UserEvent of UserAlert. The UserEvent-interface
could have the function:
boolean unregisterIndefinatly()
that returns true if no future registered events should be displayed if
the event is unregistered. The UserAlertManager could use a Set to keep
track of which events have been indefinatly unregistered. Is this a
good solution the the problem of what it means for an event to be
unregistered?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090720/9e264a20/attachment.pgp>
ight make sense to optionally store
> registered events in the UserAlertManager. Please comment on the choice
> of architecture. I have tried several different architectures before
> arriving at this simple one.
>
Seems to make a lot of sense IMHO. For the most complex case we create an
event, separately from the main UAM, and register it, resulting in its being
sent to subscribers, but when we render the feed statically or on the homepage,
we just pull the summary.
I don't think many events are similar to the ClientRequest mechanism, a lot are
essentially global. But it sounds like the ClientRequest-like events are
handled adequately.
One thing this doesn't give is a chronological event log - but maybe it's not
desirable.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090720/d8505914/attachment.pgp>
Hi All,Over the past couple months I've been speaking with Ian about your fascinating project and recently, he's asked me to give feedback on the new site design so I've included a previous email addressing that below. Looking forward to more conversations with each of you!-Brendanp.s. Here's my br
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090720/0f83743d/attachment.html>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:57:56 +0100
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sunday 19 July 2009 03:01:15 Jonas Bengtsson wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:46:06 +0100
> > Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday 04 July 2009 02:24:13 Jonas Bengtsson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:15:01 +0100
> >
On Sunday 19 July 2009 03:01:15 Jonas Bengtsson wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:46:06 +0100
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 04 July 2009 02:24:13 Jonas Bengtsson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:15:01 +0100
> > > Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > >
> > > > An architectural issue:
> > > >
10 matches
Mail list logo
