Menu
▾
▴
webmacro-devel — Discuss development issues related to the core of WebMacro
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(28) |
Dec
(47) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(103) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(65) |
Apr
(140) |
May
(72) |
Jun
(233) |
Jul
(466) |
Aug
(51) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(7) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(28) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(7) |
Jun
|
Jul
(7) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(3) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(12) |
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(59) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(24) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(3) |
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(8) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(7) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(44) |
Dec
(34) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(14) |
Mar
(11) |
Apr
(16) |
May
(41) |
Jun
(19) |
Jul
(33) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(3) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(7) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(50) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(16) |
Dec
|
| 2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(3) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Brian G. <br...@qu...> - 2003-07-07 02:53:16
|
> > If I know Brian, it will be some decorator around FastWriter that extends > > OutputStream: You don't know Brian at all, then :) > I really, truly, think we should be able to find a way to replace all > internal uses of FastWriter with Writer. > > Then the caller has the option of passing in a (slow) Writer of their own, > or getting a FastWriter from WM and using that. > > Most of all, it should be trivial. It is. Stop worrying about it. It'll be fine. |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-06 07:47:17
|
> If I know Brian, it will be some decorator around FastWriter that extends
> OutputStream:
>
> instead of this...
> FastWriter w;
> w = context.getBroker().getFastWriter(out, encoding);
> context.put("FastWriter", w); // allow template writers to access the
> output stream!
> tmpl.write(w, context);
> w.flush();
>
> we could have:
> OutputStream o;
> o = context.getBroker().getOutputStream(System.out, encoding); // send
> template to s.o
> context.put("Writer", o); // allow template writers to access the output
> stream!
> tmpl.write(w, context);
> o.flush();
Ugh, I hope not. This really isn't intuitive or simple enough in my
opinion.
I really, truly, think we should be able to find a way to replace all
internal uses of FastWriter with Writer.
Then the caller has the option of passing in a (slow) Writer of their own,
or getting a FastWriter from WM and using that.
Most of all, it should be trivial.
That context.put in there looks like such a nasty idea. I really don't
think template writers should even know about the writer let alone have
access to it. Any flushing-while-rendering issues should be dealt with
another way, say using a #flush directive.
Is the caching performed by FastWriter really so beneficial, especially if
you compare it to JDK 1.4 NIO charset encoders/decoders working on a
Channel?
Perhaps we should look to WebMacro 3 (yes three!) being JDK 1.4 or higher
only, and replacing all the output stuff with Channels etc. to potentially
get higher performance if the Servlet container also uses NIO.
This line of thinking makes me wonder if actually we should not use
java.io.Writer or FastWriter at all in our internal code for writing out.
Let's abstract it totally to something like WebMacroOutput, with a trivial
interface.
Then we can just have the publicly-accessible "front facing" methods take
whatever we like - Writer, FastWriter, Channel etc and just wrap them in a
WebMacroOutput implementation.
Surely we have to bear in mind NIO for the future? One day it may become
the de facto I/O mechanism.
Marc
--
Marc Palmer
Contract Java Consultant/Developer
http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/
http://www.wangjammers.org
|
|
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-07-06 02:28:39
|
Eric B. Ridge wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 07:26 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
>
> so are you saying that WM will continue to write to a FastWriter, but
> then only to the OutputStream once the rendering is complete?
>
> eric
If I know Brian, it will be some decorator around FastWriter that
extends OutputStream:
instead of this...
FastWriter w;
w = context.getBroker().getFastWriter(out, encoding);
context.put("FastWriter", w); // allow template writers to access
the output stream!
tmpl.write(w, context);
w.flush();
we could have:
OutputStream o;
o = context.getBroker().getOutputStream(System.out, encoding); //
send template to s.o
context.put("Writer", o); // allow template writers to access the
output stream!
tmpl.write(w, context);
o.flush();
Is this close to what you are proposing, Brian?
Lane
>
>
>>
>>> i.e. we really should be able to let end users trivially output the
>>> results
>>> of a template to a String
>>
>>
>> FW does this already. We can expose this via templates.
>>
>>> This is just one reason why exposing FastWriter is bad news. Why
>>> should it
>>> even be exposed at all anyway?! Just make it delegate to a normal
>>> Writer
>>> and have no "public API" methods that use it.
>>
>>
>> That's the plan.
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
>> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
>> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
>> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/
>> 01
>> _______________________________________________
>> Webmacro-devel mailing list
>> Web...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
> _______________________________________________
> Webmacro-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel
>
|
|
From: Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...> - 2003-07-05 23:31:18
|
On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 07:26 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: >> As (from what I know) there is no "StringOutputStream" in the JDK and >> StringWriter (from 1.4?) does exist, it really strikes me that we >> should >> accept normal Writer(s). > > The reason fastwriter is 'fast' is that it caches the encoded bytes > that > correspond to the strings in a template. This makes a pretty big > difference. > > What my plan is is to pass in an OutputStream and encoding to > template.write, and hide the FW implementation so it is internal only. > This is very easy and retains all the benefits of using FW. so are you saying that WM will continue to write to a FastWriter, but then only to the OutputStream once the rendering is complete? eric > >> i.e. we really should be able to let end users trivially output the >> results >> of a template to a String > > FW does this already. We can expose this via templates. > >> This is just one reason why exposing FastWriter is bad news. Why >> should it >> even be exposed at all anyway?! Just make it delegate to a normal >> Writer >> and have no "public API" methods that use it. > > That's the plan. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/ > 01 > _______________________________________________ > Webmacro-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel |
|
From: Brian G. <br...@qu...> - 2003-07-05 23:27:15
|
> As (from what I know) there is no "StringOutputStream" in the JDK and > StringWriter (from 1.4?) does exist, it really strikes me that we should > accept normal Writer(s). The reason fastwriter is 'fast' is that it caches the encoded bytes that correspond to the strings in a template. This makes a pretty big difference. What my plan is is to pass in an OutputStream and encoding to template.write, and hide the FW implementation so it is internal only. This is very easy and retains all the benefits of using FW. > i.e. we really should be able to let end users trivially output the results > of a template to a String FW does this already. We can expose this via templates. > This is just one reason why exposing FastWriter is bad news. Why should it > even be exposed at all anyway?! Just make it delegate to a normal Writer > and have no "public API" methods that use it. That's the plan. |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-05 19:21:56
|
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:07:28 +0100, Marc Palmer <ma...@an...> wrote: > > Guys, > > As (from what I know) there is no "StringOutputStream" in the JDK and > StringWriter (from 1.4?) does exist, it really strikes me that we should > accept normal Writer(s). > > i.e. we really should be able to let end users trivially output the > results of a template to a String PS I know we are working on this for 2.0 - this is just to back up the reasoning. |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-05 19:11:31
|
Guys, As (from what I know) there is no "StringOutputStream" in the JDK and StringWriter (from 1.4?) does exist, it really strikes me that we should accept normal Writer(s). i.e. we really should be able to let end users trivially output the results of a template to a String Preferably this should include performance benefits from using FastWriter internally, or at the very leasy should perform OK and with the same output mechanism through template.write() instead of requiring some other obscure knowledge of WM - there's Macro.toString() or something isn't there? Users should be able to: Template template = new FileTemplate( "myfile.wmt"); StringWriter sw = new StringWriter(); template.write( sw, webContext); This is just one reason why exposing FastWriter is bad news. Why should it even be exposed at all anyway?! Just make it delegate to a normal Writer and have no "public API" methods that use it. -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-03 16:03:45
|
I've moved the change history stuff off the download page and onto a ChangeHistory page. The result: a cleaner download page where we can say some other stuff, like "sub to our mailing lists". (Which I will add soon) -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-07-03 15:24:05
|
I will of course refactor my code around a WMEval revision for the better good! -Lane Lane Sharman wrote: > > > Brian Goetz wrote: > >> One of the stated goals for WM 2.0 is to eliminate the ugly FastWriter >> interface (actually, push it down where the users can't see it, since it >> does provide some important functionality, but that's all internal.) >> >> To that end, I have some questions for you all: >> >> - Who uses WMEval? In particular, the WMEval driver puts a reference to >> the FastWriter in the context. > > WMEval places a writer in the context so a template can invoke a > helper which in turn has a reference to the current output stream. The > helper can in turn pass this reference on to a helping template. When > you have a high level template and you were without macros, as I was > for years, I used this technique to sub-evaluate. And, in fact, there > is a template in the distribution, that shows this: > > examples/advanced/wizard.tml // see line 17 > > I use WMEval all the time as a decorator/mediator for processing with > WebMacro. > >> >> - Does anybody use setAsciiHack? There are no calls to it in the >> code, but >> it could be accessed from people's servlets. Anyone? > > nope. > >> >> - Does anyone use Atomizer? No refs to it in the code base... >> > nope. > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including >> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. >> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. >> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 >> _______________________________________________ >> Webmacro-devel mailing list >> Web...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > Webmacro-user mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-user > |
|
From: Brian G. <br...@qu...> - 2003-07-03 14:47:18
|
> > - Who uses WMEval? In particular, the WMEval driver puts a reference to > >the FastWriter in the context. > > > WMEval places a writer in the context so a template can invoke a helper > which in turn has a reference to the current output stream. The helper > can in turn pass this reference on to a helping template. When you have > a high level template and you were without macros, as I was for years, I > used this technique to sub-evaluate. And, in fact, there is a template > in the distribution, that shows this: > > examples/advanced/wizard.tml // see line 17 > > I use WMEval all the time as a decorator/mediator for processing with > WebMacro. Exposing FastWriter has long been something of an embarassment for us. Getting it out of the public interface is a valuable goal. So, let me ask another way: - Can you imagine a reasonably easy way to do what WMEval does without placing the FW in the context? - And, does anyone besides Lane use WMEval? |
|
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-07-03 14:38:01
|
Go for it. You are the English PR maestro. :) Marc Palmer wrote: > > Hi, > > Now Eric's got his excellent Wiki update on the site, I can edit the > "top" page. > > Any objections to me editing the first page people see so that it has > a "News" style (most recent news items in summary, linking to > individual pages for detail)? The "what WM is" stuff would be > summarised to a tagline with a link to an "About" page with the > existing "what is Wm" style content in there. > > ? > > |
|
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-07-03 14:35:17
|
Brian Goetz wrote: >One of the stated goals for WM 2.0 is to eliminate the ugly FastWriter >interface (actually, push it down where the users can't see it, since it >does provide some important functionality, but that's all internal.) > >To that end, I have some questions for you all: > > - Who uses WMEval? In particular, the WMEval driver puts a reference to >the FastWriter in the context. > WMEval places a writer in the context so a template can invoke a helper which in turn has a reference to the current output stream. The helper can in turn pass this reference on to a helping template. When you have a high level template and you were without macros, as I was for years, I used this technique to sub-evaluate. And, in fact, there is a template in the distribution, that shows this: examples/advanced/wizard.tml // see line 17 I use WMEval all the time as a decorator/mediator for processing with WebMacro. > > - Does anybody use setAsciiHack? There are no calls to it in the code, but >it could be accessed from people's servlets. Anyone? > nope. > > - Does anyone use Atomizer? No refs to it in the code base... > nope. > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including >Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. >Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. >http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 >_______________________________________________ >Webmacro-devel mailing list >Web...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel > > > |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-03 11:30:11
|
Hi, I've been doing a little work with Eric to update the WM site. He's doing some Wiki code improvements and I'm making some content tweaks. Please see the new home page: http://www.webmacro.org/WebMacro We have a section for news, a more concise explanation of what WM is, and new links to an archive of press releases and a "What is WebMacro" page which has the detailed description on it. This is minor "work in progress" stuff. I also edited the CoreDevelopers page to show St.Justin Wells as the Project Founder rather than Leader now. I don't think that's too presumptious of me. If anybody objects (including Justin) I can easily flip it back. Marc -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...> - 2003-07-02 16:01:24
|
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 11:32 AM, Marc Palmer wrote: > Hi, > > Now Eric's got his excellent Wiki update on the site, I can edit the > "top" page. > > Any objections to me editing the first page people see so that it has > a "News" style (most recent news items in summary, linking to > individual pages for detail)? The "what WM is" stuff would be > summarised to a tagline with a link to an "About" page with the > existing "what is Wm" style content in there. Sounds good to me. eric |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-02 15:32:36
|
Hi, Now Eric's got his excellent Wiki update on the site, I can edit the "top" page. Any objections to me editing the first page people see so that it has a "News" style (most recent news items in summary, linking to individual pages for detail)? The "what WM is" stuff would be summarised to a tagline with a link to an "About" page with the existing "what is Wm" style content in there. ? -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Tim P. <ti...@pa...> - 2003-07-02 08:30:18
|
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 4:18 pm, Brian Goetz wrote: > One of the stated goals for WM 2.0 is to eliminate the ugly FastWriter > interface (actually, push it down where the users can't see it, since i= t > does provide some important functionality, but that's all internal.) > > To that end, I have some questions for you all: > > - Who uses WMEval? In particular, the WMEval driver puts a reference = to > the FastWriter in the context. > > - Does anybody use setAsciiHack? There are no calls to it in the code= , > but it could be accessed from people's servlets. Anyone? > > - Does anyone use Atomizer? No refs to it in the code base... > None of the above used in Melati. cheers timp |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-01 17:10:33
|
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:18:59 -0700, Brian Goetz <br...@qu...> wrote: > One of the stated goals for WM 2.0 is to eliminate the ugly FastWriter > interface (actually, push it down where the users can't see it, since it > does provide some important functionality, but that's all internal.) > > To that end, I have some questions for you all: > > - Who uses WMEval? In particular, the WMEval driver puts a reference to > the FastWriter in the context. > > - Does anybody use setAsciiHack? There are no calls to it in the code, > but > it could be accessed from people's servlets. Anyone? > > - Does anyone use Atomizer? No refs to it in the code base... Nope, nope and nope. -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...> - 2003-07-01 16:24:54
|
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 12:18 PM, Brian Goetz wrote: > - Does anybody use setAsciiHack? There are no calls to it in the > code, but > it could be accessed from people's servlets. Anyone? I've got some legacy code that uses it... but that's no reason to keep .setasciiHack around. eric > > - Does anyone use Atomizer? No refs to it in the code base... > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/ > 01 > _______________________________________________ > Webmacro-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel |
|
From: Brian G. <br...@qu...> - 2003-07-01 16:19:10
|
One of the stated goals for WM 2.0 is to eliminate the ugly FastWriter interface (actually, push it down where the users can't see it, since it does provide some important functionality, but that's all internal.) To that end, I have some questions for you all: - Who uses WMEval? In particular, the WMEval driver puts a reference to the FastWriter in the context. - Does anybody use setAsciiHack? There are no calls to it in the code, but it could be accessed from people's servlets. Anyone? - Does anyone use Atomizer? No refs to it in the code base... |
|
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-07-01 15:46:42
|
well. How about some focus on the requirements. and, how about some pruning of the goals and feature set. I think we have distilled out and in the bad and the good. the real problem is that unless we make a firm commit to the 2.0 project, Nov 20003 will be too aggressive as well. If we all put our oars in the water for a few months, I think we would all surprise ourselves at we as a group and team can accomplish where as an individual it is so hard to do! -Lane Brian Goetz wrote: >>Can we schedule some time to complete WM 2.0? >> >>July - Finalize content design; elements. >> >> > >This is WAY too aggressive. > >I know you're anxious to see movement here, as we've not seen any for >a while and now there's some signs of life, but I think it is >bordering on ridiculous to schedule "acceptance" and "release" dates >when we've not even set requirements, or even goals, yet. > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including >Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. >Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. >http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 >_______________________________________________ >Webmacro-devel mailing list >Web...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel > > > |
|
From: Brian G. <br...@qu...> - 2003-07-01 15:18:05
|
> Can we schedule some time to complete WM 2.0? > > July - Finalize content design; elements. This is WAY too aggressive. I know you're anxious to see movement here, as we've not seen any for a while and now there's some signs of life, but I think it is bordering on ridiculous to schedule "acceptance" and "release" dates when we've not even set requirements, or even goals, yet. |
|
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-07-01 14:41:26
|
Can we schedule some time to complete WM 2.0? July - Finalize content design; elements. Aug - Code. Sept - Unit Test Oct - Acceptance Nov - Release With 2.0, we will run a new campaign: "the first Templating language for Java just got a whole lot better". I have some PR resources and with Marc's Ignition this will fire up some strong adoption. I am going to Overture tonight to talk about WM? They acquired AltaVista :). -Lane |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-07-01 13:41:54
|
Brian has informed me that he is putting together some info on the obsolete optimisations that should be removed. From this will follow Eric's refactoring of the code. Both these items are in the tracker and assigned to the guilty parties. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=64597&atid=508037 -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-06-30 16:54:03
|
Let's all start using the SF Trackers now. Bugs: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=64597&atid=508034 Feature Requests (AKA 2.0 work): http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=64597&atid=508037 I've added the package reorg to the feature requests. Let's start agreeing the items from the /NextRelease page (perhaps one by one eh?) and add them to the tracker as we go. Marc -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
|
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-06-30 16:37:18
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:22:26 -0400, Eric B. Ridge <eb...@tc...> wrote: > On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Marc Palmer wrote: > >> I can't make out from CVS notifications if this has been done yet - has >> it? > > we have yet to agree on a package structure... Well I saw no disagreement of worth... please set it up as a vote on http://www.webmacro.org/DeveloperVotes and we can see if there there is any real objection at all. Marc -- Marc Palmer Contract Java Consultant/Developer http://www.anyware.co.uk/marc/ http://www.wangjammers.org |
237 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
