No worries - I'll commit now. Thanks,
Les On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > No I haven't, go ahead. I created an issue for combining the two > samples as proposed and scheduled it tentatively for 1.0.1. Thanks - > should have added the ASF headers myself. > > Kalle > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> Kalle, have you started to move this stuff? >> >> I was just about to commit changes to most of those files by adding in >> the ASF header, but I thought I'd check first to avoid merge >> conflicts. >> >> - Les >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I agree - the Quickstart main is good enough as a unit-test-like >>> example to demonstrate the API. Beyond that, a proper standalone >>> example application should probably demonstrate a nicer feature set >>> (like aspectj integration). Good idea :) >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Wanted to close out SHIRO-129 (aspectj integration) so I just >>>> mavenized and committed the contributed sample (not attached to the >>>> reactor build yet). We also have a rudimentary standalone sample which >>>> actually isn't much of an app but just main that behaves like a unit >>>> test. The aspectj sample doesn't have main() at the moment but the >>>> sample domain is decent and complete enough so we could easily create >>>> a simple standalone app around it. I'm thinking that we should just >>>> drop the current standalone, rename the aspectj as the standalone >>>> sample and make it a runnable desktop app. What say you? >>>> >>>> Kalle >>>> >>> >> >
