though the mailet API has been moved to the mailet subproject, mailet
implementations are still contained in the server codebase. managing
mailets as part of the mailet sub-project will allow releases to be
made independent of the JAMES server, reduce the learning time
required before developers ca
[X] +1 Move Mailets to Mailet subproject
Stefano
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [X] +1 Move Mailets to Mailet subproject
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Am Montag, den 03.03.2008, 00:03 +0100 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> [X] +1 Move Mailets to Mailet subproject
>
Norman
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
--
Søren Hilmer, M.Sc., M.Crypt.
wideTrailPhone: +45 25481225
Pilevænget 41Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DK-8961 Allingåbro Web: www.widetrail.dk
On Sun, March 2, 2008 21:59, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> though the mailet API has been moved to the mailet subproject, mailet
>
>
>
> [x] +1 Move Mailets to Mailet subproject
>
>
Vincenzo
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 02 March 2008 21:00:
> [X] +1 Move Mailets to Mailet subproject
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert,
It sounds OK, so +1 in general, but with all of the refactoring, we've
making it increasingly difficult to compare versions of JAMES. This would
not be so bad if we had ever made a stable baseline prior to the
refactorings, but instead we started with unstable baselines and refactored,
me
i think we have a reasonable consensus to push on with this change
i count +1's from
Robert Burrell Donkin
Stefano Bagnara
Serge Knystautas
Soren Hilmer
Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini
Steve Brewin
Noel J. Bergman
please jump in with any corrections
i'll start some threads discussing details...
- rob
Am Mittwoch, den 05.03.2008, 20:59 + schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin:
> i think we have a reasonable consensus to push on with this change
>
> i count +1's from
> Robert Burrell Donkin
> Stefano Bagnara
> Serge Knystautas
> Soren Hilmer
> Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini
> Steve Brewin
> Noel J. Bergm
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> It sounds OK, so +1 in general, but with all of the refactoring, we've
> making it increasingly difficult to compare versions of JAMES. This would
> not be so bad if we had ever made a stable baseline prior
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
trunk was forked from 2.3.0 several years ago now and contains
significant differences not only in organisation but also design. i
doubt whether anyone has the time required to perform a comprehensive
manual comparison now whether the mailets are in trunk or else
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > It sounds OK, so +1 in general, but with all of the refactoring, we've
> > making it increasingly difficult to compare versions of JAMES. This
would
> > not be so bad if we had ever made a stable baseline prior to the
> > refactorings, but
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
trunk was forked from 2.3.0 several years ago now
Yes, I am keenly aware of the last time I had time to work on a release and
the communal disinterest or inability to do one since. One question I have
is, should the next release come fr
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
>
> > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >> trunk was forked from 2.3.0 several years ago now
> >
> > Yes, I am keenly aware of the last time I had time to work on a release and
> > the communa
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I think it is a different story. That branch involved much less code than
> current v2.3-trunk differences but included major changes to mailet api.
Yes, much less code. More code ==> more bugs. And you certainly aren't
going to claim that there aren't major changes in t
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> releasing a 3.0 would involve a series of milestone releases to
> build confidence in the new codebase rather than a manual process
> of re-evaluating every change.
Re-evaluating implies that they were evaluated in the first place.
> i hope to have a function compl
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I think it is a different story. That branch involved much less code than
current v2.3-trunk differences but included major changes to mailet api.
Yes, much less code. More code ==> more bugs. And you certainly aren't
going to claim that the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
>
> > Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> I think it is a different story. That branch involved much less code than
> >> current v2.3-trunk differences but included major changes to mailet api.
> >
>
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > i'm happy with avalon but i accept that using avalon (as an IoC) is
> > a major negative factor in attracting new developers
>
> I think that's a false truth that has become a meme. Drop t
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
JAMES uses LogKit (and so avalon framework) for logging. though LogKit
is good, it's tied to avalon and no longer widely used. most
developers would be much more familiar with log4j and JCL. it is
possible to use either of these libraries in an IoC fashion which
21 matches
Mail list logo
