More old threads.
Here we chose to retire random. That didn't get done (though Input did
get retired).
So planning to also deprecate Random.
Hen
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:18 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/16/07, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it s
On 5/21/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Immediate anything else thoughts
Can we move to JIRA? :)
We need to retire the components in bugzilla so people don't report
issues against them there (there's always the mailing list).
We'll need to update the unstandard build signific
Henri Yandell wrote:
On 5/21/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Four 'volunteers' so far:
>
> Martin, Rahul, Kris, myself.
me too
Oops - mental slip. I meant Karl rather than Kris.
Kris, you up for any of this?
Absolutely. I think someone else mention
On 5/21/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Four 'volunteers' so far:
>
> Martin, Rahul, Kris, myself.
me too
Oops - mental slip. I meant Karl rather than Kris.
Kris, you up for any of this?
Hen
Henri Yandell wrote:
Four 'volunteers' so far:
Martin, Rahul, Kris, myself.
me too
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't that enough for TLP ? ;)
Mvgr,
Martin
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/16/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
>> might have some number of people interested in working on things.
>
> Summarizing:
>
> Four 'volunteers
On 5/21/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/16/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
> might have some number of people interested in working on things.
Summarizing:
Four 'volunteers' so far:
Martin, Rahul
On 5/16/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
might have some number of people interested in working on things.
Summarizing:
Four 'volunteers' so far:
Martin, Rahul, Kris, myself.
It sounds like we're all of a consensus
On 5/19/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 5/18/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I like the idea of lumping the various pieces we want to keep into
>> a single
>> > jar, a la JSTL. One thing, though: Wouldn't we want to ensure that
>> al
On 5/19/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> Karl -
>
> Your email below is not subscribed, so needs moderation ATM (I'll
> respond to the content of this thread later).
Sorry, I repeatedly forget to switch to my subscribed address before
sending - I hit Cancel wh
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 5/18/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea of lumping the various pieces we want to keep into
a single
> jar, a la JSTL. One thing, though: Wouldn't we want to ensure that
all of
> the pieces in that jar are EL-enabled? Have some enabled and s
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Karl -
Your email below is not subscribed, so needs moderation ATM (I'll
respond to the content of this thread later).
Sorry, I repeatedly forget to switch to my subscribed address before
sending - I hit Cancel while it's sending but I did wonder if it was in
time. I'm wor
On 5/18/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/18/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea of lumping the various pieces we want to keep into a single
> jar, a la JSTL. One thing, though: Wouldn't we want to ensure that all of
> the pieces in that jar are EL-
On 5/18/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/18/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Karl -
>
> Your email below is not subscribed, so needs moderation ATM
Next time you moderate him through, just do a Reply-All instead of a Reply
and his address will be 'allow'ed to po
On 5/18/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/16/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
> might have some number of people interested in working on things.
> Here's a proposal for a general direction:
>
>
> 1)
On 5/16/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
might have some number of people interested in working on things.
Here's a proposal for a general direction:
1) Taglibs contains three active items:
* Standard 1.1 (1.0 being
On 5/18/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Karl -
Your email below is not subscribed, so needs moderation ATM
Next time you moderate him through, just do a Reply-All instead of a Reply
and his address will be 'allow'ed to post to the list in the future without
moderation.
--
Marti
Karl -
Your email below is not subscribed, so needs moderation ATM (I'll
respond to the content of this thread later).
-Rahul
On 5/17/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> I think...
>
> a) Agree on the breakdown of taglibs from above (ie: decide on what
> we
Henri Yandell wrote:
I think...
a) Agree on the breakdown of taglibs from above (ie: decide on what
we're going to use as input for the taglib, and what maintenance tasks
we need to do to move those to inactive)
b) As a part of that deciding; we'll learn who 'we' is :)
Sounds good to me. Let's
On 5/17/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/16/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Great. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. So once the chaff is cut from the
>> taglibs project, what "is" unstandard?
>
> It's the things that would be in JSTL if it
Henri Yandell wrote:
On 5/16/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. So once the chaff is cut from the
taglibs project, what "is" unstandard?
It's the things that would be in JSTL if it was an open source project
and not tied to a spec.
Probably not
On 5/16/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Had a vague memory it might be - but always best to bid low as such
> and force activity :) Sounds like one to look at including in
> Unstandard. By merging the small taglibs together I think we can get
> enough overlap
Henri Yandell wrote:
Had a vague memory it might be - but always best to bid low as such
and force activity :) Sounds like one to look at including in
Unstandard. By merging the small taglibs together I think we can get
enough overlap to increase activity.
Great. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. So
On 5/16/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> * Input. I don't think anyone is using this anymore.
>
On the Input tag library:
I've committed a whole bag of fixes and improvements recently and I
think it is still a useful library. I have had several email exchan
Henri Yandell wrote:
* Input. I don't think anyone is using this anymore.
On the Input tag library:
I've committed a whole bag of fixes and improvements recently and I
think it is still a useful library. I have had several email exchanges
regarding the changes so I think there are people ou
Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
might have some number of people interested in working on things.
Here's a proposal for a general direction:
1) Taglibs contains three active items:
* Standard 1.1 (1.0 being considered an older, unsupported release).
* Unstandar
26 matches
Mail list logo
