(reposting from the right email account)
hi joao,
thanks for your comments!
> I would argue about having something a bit more generic for naming like
> "defragment()".
>
that's totally fine with me.
> I don't see how the callbacks are useful though. Vacuum works
> transparently, its effects
hi joao,
thanks for your comments!
> I would argue about having something a bit more generic for naming like
> "defragment()".
>
that's totally fine with me.
> I don't see how the callbacks are useful though. Vacuum works
> transparently, its effects are not visible, and what should the page
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> For what it's worth, regardless of the answers to the above questions, I
> think we should switch to a callback based model. It's great to use events
> when natural to do so, but this is a very unnatural use. It provides
> artificial limitati
I've included an implementation of the WARP draft in the current
Apache Wookie (incubating) snapshot if anyone fancies playing with it.
Its missing a management UI, but you can drop .wgt files in the Wookie
deploy folder and it will process the access request policy.
E.g.
Adding "w
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>
> On 3/4/2010 11:46 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On 3/4/2010 11:08 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >>>
>> >>> *
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:32 AM, João Eiras wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:22:00 +0100, Dumitru Daniliuc
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> We (Chromium) would like to add a vacuum() call on the Database object.
>>
>
> [...]
>
> I would argue about having something a bit more generic for naming like
> "def
Le jeudi 04 mars 2010 à 17:03 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> Good suggestion, the latest ED reflects the above change plus another
> reference where subdomains are defined.
>
> Please let us know if that works for you!
It does, thanks!
Dom
