Yeah, I saw this and thought about James... we've got the server, the
mailet API, and a collection of mailets all as possible subprojects. Or
maybe multiple mailet packages... some standard ones, then others that
are more like stand-alone apps.
--
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies -
we've got the server, the mailet API, and a collection
of mailets all as possible subprojects. Or maybe
multiple mailet packages... some standard ones, then
others that are more like stand-alone apps.
James would be a fine top level project. And it is really very independent
of anything
James would be a fine top level project. And it is really
very independent of anything else, except for the hidden
dependence upon Avalon.
--- Noel
which can be crippling at times.
in going top-level, it must be very clear that all
dependencies are either removed or explicitly spelled
If thats what you want to do we can put out another dated 2.1a1.
d.
As I said in another e-mail, let's put out a 2.1a2 Milestone Build to
replace the ancient May 30 2.1a1 Milestone, and I'll feel much
better for
our end users.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
James' code isn't undocumented, but there are various uncommented members,
so Peter is trying to complete the documentation. The same can be said of
org.apache.poi. For example, AbstractFunctionPtg is missing javadocs for a
number of members.
I'll bite...
While this is a tad offtopic...
or something as
fundamental as the correct documentation for how to setup a database URL
(which is correct in the CVS, and wrong in the current download).
If this is the case it because the docs have been fixed.
And.. you should only consider the relevance of the stable release
versions'
Thank you. Would you mind if a message went out on James-User
telling folks
that we're working towards a new Release Build, and asking them for
contributions towards the documentation? They could contribute
actual bits
of documentation, or just questions that they are having trouble with.
You did. :-) My question was about soliciting documentation
contributions.
solicit away.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Peter, for your message that makes things move forward. I'm
adding some comments about the specific item of javadocs. First, I must
say that I agree with 2 comments from Noel:
Internal Documentation
Absolutely necessary. But NOT to hold up the 2.1 release. We can continue
to
Vincent Keunen wrote:
Thanks Peter, for your message that makes things move forward. I'm
adding some comments about the specific item of javadocs. First, I must
say that I agree with 2 comments from Noel:
Internal Documentation
Absolutely necessary. But NOT to hold up the 2.1 release.
offline, but I stand by my
original wish list entry.
--Peter
-Original Message-
From: Vincent Keunen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:13 AM
To: James Developers List
Subject: about javadocs (was: Re: FW: What do we need to release 2.1?)
Thanks Peter
by my
original wish list entry.
--Peter
-Original Message-
From: Vincent Keunen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:13 AM
To: James Developers List
Subject: about javadocs (was: Re: FW: What do we need to release 2.1?)
Thanks Peter, for your message
Vincent Keunen wrote:
First, I must say that I agree with 2 comments from Noel:
Internal Documentation
Absolutely necessary. But NOT to hold up the 2.1 release. We can
continue
to upgrade the web site with new documentation, and any serious
developer
should be working from the CVS
Peter,
I agree with almost all of your points. The only ones that I disagree with
are:
observation of the changelog indicates, leaving javadoc out vs.
adding javadoc has not made the development any faster.
I disagree, in a way that you'll like. I think that accurate javadocs
facilitates
I totally disagree with just about everything Noel said except for the
end. Development builds milestone builds or whatever, should not be
delayed for quality concerns. It just can't be blessed as a release.
As long as everyone understands that documentation is as important as
code and that
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 20:40:35 -0400
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everyone is agreeing that the documentation is necessary. But javadocs for
developers is not a reason to hold end users hostage.
I love this sentence, But javadocs for developers is not a reason to
hold end users
No, I'm pragmatic and you just don't like it. This isn't about some ivory
tower notion of what makes good code. This is about lots of James users who
are stuck using buggy code and bad documention while we sit here using the
good stuff and arguing over when to deliver it to them.
What
To be honest Tetsuya, it makes me scared to use it. Javadoc to me is so
basic and takes so little time, to actually argue against it... To me
this is the same as an argument to write variables a1, a2, a3... Its
code quality. This is an active argument for poor code quality and I
can't
: gmane.comp.jakarta.james.devel
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: about javadocs (was: Re: FW: What do we need to release 2.1?)
To be honest Tetsuya, it makes me scared to use it. Javadoc to me is so
basic and takes so little time, to actually argue against
Hi, Andy and all.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:21:42 -0400
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest Tetsuya, it makes me scared to use it. Javadoc to me is so
basic and takes so little time, to actually argue against it... To me
this is the same as an argument to write variables
Peter M. Goldstein wrote:
All,
Apologies for the cross-post folks - this was supposed to go to
james-dev, not james-user.
--Peter
-Original Message-
From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:56 PM
To: 'James Users List'
Subject: What do we
Kishore,
This is a bug in JavaMail. I see this error message occassionally in my
logs but never had the email source that was causing it. You'll have to
follow-up with Sun on this one as we're rather dependent on their
library for MIME parsing and writing. I think JavaMail 1.3 is about to
Chris,
Make you application a Phoenix block. depend on the interfaces
offered by James for true interaction.
Be in the same VM as Jo!, JabberServer, AvalonDB, Jesktop, etc etc too.
- Paul
-Original Message-
From: Forbes, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 9:02 PM
To:
thanks Pete.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 12:17 PM
To: James Developers List
Subject: Re: FW: current version of James?
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 23:13, Danny Angus wrote:
what I can't do, no account on deadalus
24 matches
Mail list logo
