On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
Simon Laws wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for
ant elder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors
when
you put the application into production. The
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors
when
you put the application into production.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors when
you put the application into production. The trick is to know the
difference
between deployment for UT vs. deployment for real.
:-)
Dave
And the other trick is
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors when
you put the application into production. The trick is to know the
difference
between deployment for UT vs. deployment for real.
:-)
Dave
And
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors when
you put the application into production. The trick is to know the
difference
between deployment for UT vs.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I agree with that and having recently spent time helping people new to
Tuscany and seen the problems they've had I think it would be much more
helpful to fail. Could we have a lenient mode which can be used when
debugging in
]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Reporting errors for illegal SCA annotations (TUSCANY-2140)
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Mike Edwards wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I agree with that and having recently spent time helping people new to
Tuscany and seen
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when the application is developed. +1 for Errors when
you put the application into production. The trick is to know the
difference
between deployment for UT vs. deployment for real.
:-)
Dave
And the other trick is to allow processing of
to
react properly.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Reporting errors for illegal SCA annotations (TUSCANY-2140)
scabooz wrote:
Hi Folks,
+1 for warnings when
scabooz wrote:
Yep. Deployment for UT usually involves all the traditional
IT roles, just in development mode. By the time the
application gets through its initial lifecycle phases, subsequent
lifecycle phases need to be more strict. The admin role
early in the lifecycle should be very
I agree with that and having recently spent time helping people new to
Tuscany and seen the problems they've had I think it would be much more
helpful to fail. Could we have a lenient mode which can be used when
debugging in eclipse? But I think the default should be strict so when you
deploy a
ant elder wrote:
I agree with that and having recently spent time helping people new to
Tuscany and seen the problems they've had I think it would be much more
helpful to fail. Could we have a lenient mode which can be used when
debugging in eclipse? But I think the default should be strict so
ant elder wrote:
I agree with that and having recently spent time helping people new to
Tuscany and seen the problems they've had I think it would be much more
helpful to fail. Could we have a lenient mode which can be used when
debugging in eclipse? But I think the default should be strict so
Mike Edwards wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I agree with that and having recently spent time helping people new to
Tuscany and seen the problems they've had I think it would be much more
helpful to fail. Could we have a lenient mode which can be used when
debugging in eclipse? But I think the default
TUSCANY-2140 raises a more general question about whether we should
report errors for all SCA annotations that are used in illegal positions.
I suspect it would be impractical to do this in every possible case.
For error cases that we consider common or harmful, adding a
diagnostic is worthwhile.
Simon Nash wrote:
TUSCANY-2140 raises a more general question about whether we should
report errors for all SCA annotations that are used in illegal positions.
I suspect it would be impractical to do this in every possible case.
For error cases that we consider common or harmful, adding a
In that case do we need to make sure that the spec (the next version of it)
says the same by getting the errata[1] corrected?
[1]
http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Errata+for+Java+Annotations+and+APIs+V1.00
++Vamsi
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:41 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reporting errors for illegal SCA annotations (TUSCANY-2140)
Simon Nash wrote:
TUSCANY-2140 raises a more general question about whether we should
report errors for all SCA annotations that are used in illegal
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Simon Nash wrote:
TUSCANY-2140 raises a more general question about whether we should
report errors for all SCA annotations that are used in illegal positions.
I suspect it would be impractical to do this in every possible case.
For error cases that we consider
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
In that case do we need to make sure that the spec (the next version of it)
says the same by getting the errata[1] corrected?
[1]
http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Errata+for+Java+Annotations+and+APIs+V1.00
++Vamsi
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
+1 to report a
As a user, I would rely on a composition to behave in certain way. Wouldn't
bringing up a composite for which some of the components don't work the way
they should, invalidate my assumption and lead to unexpected behavior at
runtime?
On 3/27/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
haleh mahbod wrote:
As a user, I would rely on a composition to behave in certain way. Wouldn't
bringing up a composite for which some of the components don't work the way
they should, invalidate my assumption and lead to unexpected behavior at
runtime?
How would you debug if it had to be
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
In that case do we need to make sure that the spec (the next version of
it)
says the same by getting the errata[1] corrected?
[1]
25 matches
Mail list logo
