webwork-devel Mailing List for WebWork (Page 11)
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
Menu
▾
▴
webwork-devel — WebWork development
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(316) |
Dec
(117) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(197) |
Feb
(229) |
Mar
(293) |
Apr
(177) |
May
(84) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(43) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Jay B. <dig...@ya...> - 2002-04-06 04:07:45
|
> Examples/Tests > 1. More Swing/Client side examples > > Misc > 1. Bug list > 2. Feature list > 3. Instrument/profile code - where is our bottlenecks? how well does WW > scale? > 4. Logging - overhaul debug statements to use proper logging levels - debug, > info, etc. > 5. Nightly builds I'd like to help here... Let me know how. ===== Respectfully, Jay Bose __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Heng S. L. <low...@ya...> - 2002-04-06 03:21:01
|
1. Management console - some configuration tool would be nice. 2. Tool integration - DreamWeaver integration for the ui tag. 3. Debugging tool - A value stack inspection tool would be usefull. 4. SWT client ? 5. Security model/framework ? 6. Action repository api - I think it might be usefull to abstract out the storage of action definition and its associated view mapping, possibly allowing runtime configuration/customization. 7. Support for the forth coming portlet api ? 8. Multi-channel view mapping ? - For e.g, define different view for the same action base on the output channel type ( xml, wml, html, etc ) 9. More real world example/usage pattern - eCommerce - portal Regards, Low __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@dr...> - 2002-04-05 16:11:08
|
Matt Baldree wrote: > 3rd draft of possible next release feature/requirements based on what people > have posted. Right now these are candidate ideas. Once we have a good list, > we can repost for inclusion/exclusion/prioritization, etc. > > Other ideas? Somewhere down the line we should investigate supporting JavaServerFaces (looks trivial) and the new standard tag library. I've also been thinking about maybe refactoring the dispatcher so that it separates the HTTP-specific parts from the purely WW-specific parts, in order to more easily have more dispatchers. Also, people have been complaining that it's not possible to have multiple servlet dispatchers in a web app. I'm not quite sure why one would want that, but there ya go. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Some have also complained that the action description is "monolithic", i.e. it's not possible to describe actions in multiple files. AFAICT this is not entirely true since one can put partial configs in XML-snippets and use entities in a actions.xml to reference them. Haven't tried it though. Moving more towards an XML-based configuration scheme may be a good idea. Not sure though, since XML would make it much much more verbose. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@dr...> - 2002-04-05 14:18:18
|
Jason Carreira wrote: > I've also got a SessionActionFactory that I built a while back that > will reuse the same action by saving it and pulling it from the > session, which makes things like multi-page forms easy, because you > don't have to keep passing the data along as hidden fields, etc. Yes, this should be added somehow. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg |
|
From: Jason C. <jas...@no...> - 2002-04-05 14:10:12
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Baldree [mailto:ma...@sm...]=20 > Enhancements > 1. More velocity macros, etc. > 2. WML tags > 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) > 4. VXML tags > 5. Ability to chain actions > 6. XSLT should be enhanced slightly to be really useful. We=20 > need some XSLT > java extension for URL-escaping and so on. > 7. Ability to receive multi-part content - AttachmentAware? I've also got a SessionActionFactory that I built a while back that will = reuse the same action by saving it and pulling it from the session, = which makes things like multi-page forms easy, because you don't have to = keep passing the data along as hidden fields, etc. |
|
From: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-05 11:56:42
|
3rd draft of possible next release feature/requirements based on what people have posted. Right now these are candidate ideas. Once we have a good list, we can repost for inclusion/exclusion/prioritization, etc. Other ideas? Documentation 1. Better velocity documentation 2. A more detailed section describing the view mapping focusing on using actions.xml and views.properties with an example containing all the goodies (commands, aliases, hierarchical aspects etc.) and describing the main differences between them. 3. A detailed description on the single items and configuration of the webwork.properties should be done (based on the default.properties) 4. Client Action documentation Enhancements 1. More velocity macros, etc. 2. WML tags 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) 4. VXML tags 5. Ability to chain actions 6. XSLT should be enhanced slightly to be really useful. We need some XSLT java extension for URL-escaping and so on. 7. Ability to receive multi-part content - AttachmentAware? Examples/Tests 1. More Swing/Client side examples Misc 1. Bug list 2. Feature list 3. Instrument/profile code - where is our bottlenecks? how well does WW scale? 4. Logging - overhaul debug statements to use proper logging levels - debug, info, etc. 5. Nightly builds Incorporating new view technologies 1. Flash 2. Apache Axis (SOAP) -Matt |
|
From: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-05 11:47:57
|
your correct. I'll add the bug.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bogdan Ghidireac" <bo...@bl...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] isMethod patch
> > That have already been fixed, checked cvs.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Low
>
>
> ok. I updated my cvs. sorry.
>
> But I have a new one :)
> When I am trying to create a textarea like this one, I always get a read
> only textarea.
>
> <ui:textarea label="'Comments'" name="'comments'" readonly="false"
cols="30"
> rows="8"/>
>
> I looked at the textarea.jsp from template and seems that the test is
always
> true if the readonly attribute is present.
>
> <webwork:property value="parameters['readonly']">
> <webwork:if
> test="{parameters['readonly']}">READONLY</webwork:if>
> </webwork:property>
>
> If the test is modified to
>
> <webwork:property value="parameters['readonly']">
> <webwork:if test="{parameters['readonly']} ==
> true">READONLY</webwork:if>
> </webwork:property>
>
> then everything works ok. This applies to other controls, too.
>
> Regards,
> Bogdan
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>
>
|
|
From: Hai P. <yf...@ya...> - 2002-04-05 09:19:58
|
Consider this scenario: You have a list of checkboxes (associated with a list of messages), and a set of submit buttons to: 1. Delete those messages 2. Move to another place 3. Send to an email address .... CommandDriven action is a perfect match for this, since almost all submit buttons use the same set of parameters. --- Rickard <ri...@mi...> wrote: > Hai Pham wrote: > > > Are you implying that we should not have multiple > > submit buttons in one form? > > > What do you need them for? What's your case? > > > That scenario is quite > > common actually. Forcing user to enable JavaScript > > just so you can use multiple submit buttons with > > CommandDriven action is a pretty bad idea. > > > That may be, but I want to avoid as much as possible > to start creating > exceptions to rules, and what you proposed would be > such a thing. > > So, first I need to know why you want to do what you > say you want to do. > > /Rickard > > -- > Rickard Öberg > > ===== --------------------------------------------- Hai Pham Quang --------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-05 07:30:26
|
Philipp Meier wrote: >> Enhancements >> 1. More velocity macros, etc. >> 2. WML tags >> 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) >> 4. Chain actions >=20 > The XSLT view stuff should be enhanced slightly to be really useful. We > need some XSLT java extension for URL-escaping and so on. I don't know > if I'll have the time but I don't want to give up the XSLT thingy. So > is their anybody except me using it? Huh? It's tough at the top you know ;-) /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-05 07:27:16
|
Low Heng Sin wrote: >>Oop! I don't get this one, how would it work since Flash wouldn't >> > understand java serialized object ?=20 Flash has a servlet gateway that transforms serialized objects to the=20 Flash-internal format. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-05 07:26:53
|
Hai Pham wrote: > Are you implying that we should not have multiple > submit buttons in one form?=20 What do you need them for? What's your case? > That scenario is quite > common actually. Forcing user to enable JavaScript > just so you can use multiple submit buttons with > CommandDriven action is a pretty bad idea. That may be, but I want to avoid as much as possible to start creating=20 exceptions to rules, and what you proposed would be such a thing. So, first I need to know why you want to do what you say you want to do. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Vedovato P. <pao...@pr...> - 2002-04-05 06:05:43
|
> common actually. Forcing user to enable JavaScript > just so you can use multiple submit buttons with > CommandDriven action is a pretty bad idea. I can only fully agree on that point - no JavaScript please. The use of WebWork and (in this case) its functionalities must be possible to do without using JavaScript. There are a lot of webapps which don't want to use JavaScript (in our case the use is even prohibited). Cheers -Paolo |
|
From: Hai P. <yf...@ya...> - 2002-04-05 02:52:23
|
Hi Rickard, Are you implying that we should not have multiple submit buttons in one form? That scenario is quite common actually. Forcing user to enable JavaScript just so you can use multiple submit buttons with CommandDriven action is a pretty bad idea. --- Rickard wrote: > FROM: RickardDATE: 04/03/2002 03:56:02SUBJECT: > [Webwork-user] Re: [Webwork-devel] CommandDriven > behavior and enhancement (Please CC list) > > Hai Pham wrote: > > > The point of CommandDriven is to provide multiple > > paths to the same action; > > > Multiple possible actions using same input/output, > yes. > > > and thus there can be more > > than one submit buttons in a form. > > > No, not necessarily. > > > How do you plan to > > use hidden fiels to achieve that? > > > The way I told you. The difference is that you > assume > that a single form > can lead to several different actions, and I don't. > I > would use either > multiple forms, or simple links (assuming there's no > actual form data > needed, which is not that uncommon). If you *need* > the > same form to go > to different commands on submit then that can be > accomplished using > JavaScript to modify the value of the hidden > "command" > field. > > /Rickard > > -- > Rickard Öberg > > > ===== > --------------------------------------------- > Hai Pham Quang > --------------------------------------------- > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax > http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ===== --------------------------------------------- Hai Pham Quang --------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Bogdan G. <bo...@bl...> - 2002-04-05 02:29:53
|
> That have already been fixed, checked cvs.
>
> Regards,
> Low
ok. I updated my cvs. sorry.
But I have a new one :)
When I am trying to create a textarea like this one, I always get a read
only textarea.
<ui:textarea label="'Comments'" name="'comments'" readonly="false" cols="30"
rows="8"/>
I looked at the textarea.jsp from template and seems that the test is always
true if the readonly attribute is present.
<webwork:property value="parameters['readonly']">
<webwork:if
test="{parameters['readonly']}">READONLY</webwork:if>
</webwork:property>
If the test is modified to
<webwork:property value="parameters['readonly']">
<webwork:if test="{parameters['readonly']} ==
true">READONLY</webwork:if>
</webwork:property>
then everything works ok. This applies to other controls, too.
Regards,
Bogdan
|
|
From: Bogdan G. <bo...@bl...> - 2002-04-05 01:29:23
|
Hi,
According to the docs, value="second()" will cause WW to look for
getSecond() or isSecond().
Now, isSecond() is never called because of a small bug in
webwork.util.ValueStack:721.
if (methodName.startsWith("get"))
methodName =
Introspector.decapitalize(methodName.substring(3));
if (name.startsWith("is"))
methodName =
Introspector.decapitalize(methodName.substring(2));
I attached a patch file that changes
name.startsWith("is")
in
methodName.startsWith("is")
I hope it is ok.
Regards,
Bogdan
|
|
From: Justen S. <js...@we...> - 2002-04-04 23:20:38
|
+1 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <mi...@at...> To: "Philipp Meier" <me...@me...>; "Matt Baldree" <ma...@sm...> Cc: <web...@li...>; <web...@li...> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] Re: [Webwork-user] revised - next releasefeatures/requirements > Might I make a suggestion that I think should go to the top of the list... > > FileAttachments! AttachmentAware! FileUploadAware! > > Whatever we want to call it ;) > > (At the moment to do file uploads you have to use JSP or a servlet - which > is the only area of our app we can't use webwork - which stinks ;)) > > Cheers, > Mike > > PS The ClientAction documentation and SOAPAction didn't make the list either > ;) > > On 5/4/02 12:15 AM, "Philipp Meier" (me...@me...) penned the > words: > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:04:16PM -0600, Matt Baldree wrote: > > > >> Enhancements > >> 1. More velocity macros, etc. > >> 2. WML tags > >> 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) > >> 4. Chain actions > > > > The XSLT view stuff should be enhanced slightly to be really useful. We > > need some XSLT java extension for URL-escaping and so on. I don't know > > if I'll have the time but I don't want to give up the XSLT thingy. So > > is their anybody except me using it? Huh? > > > > -billy. > > > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-user mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user > |
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-04-04 22:42:21
|
Might I make a suggestion that I think should go to the top of the list... FileAttachments! AttachmentAware! FileUploadAware! Whatever we want to call it ;) (At the moment to do file uploads you have to use JSP or a servlet - which is the only area of our app we can't use webwork - which stinks ;)) Cheers, Mike PS The ClientAction documentation and SOAPAction didn't make the list either ;) On 5/4/02 12:15 AM, "Philipp Meier" (me...@me...) penned the words: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:04:16PM -0600, Matt Baldree wrote: > >> Enhancements >> 1. More velocity macros, etc. >> 2. WML tags >> 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) >> 4. Chain actions > > The XSLT view stuff should be enhanced slightly to be really useful. We > need some XSLT java extension for URL-escaping and so on. I don't know > if I'll have the time but I don't want to give up the XSLT thingy. So > is their anybody except me using it? Huh? > > -billy. |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 15:55:27
|
Jim...@do... wrote: > Why don't you cast your vote then?=20 That was deliberate, since there's no democracy >;-) Which is why I was=20 more interested in your motivated opinions. Anyone can send a number,=20 but not everyone can motivate an opinion. > This would actually alienate developers on other app servers with the=20 > _perception_ that WebWork is tied to jBoss. This will happen no matter=20 > what amount of documentation to the contrary. Bye-bye Orion developers,= =20 > BEA developers, etc. Besides, this makes little sense for jBoss either. Good points. > IMHO, there doesn't seem to be an integration point here. It would just= =20 > make a collection of decent web-tier tools.=20 So you don't agree with the previous posts that mention what integration=20 would be useful? > If I am the manufacturer of a new fuel injection system, why would I wa= nt=20 > to put Infiniti's brand on it? I want _every_ car manufacturer to be my= =20 > customer. Even if I am not excluding them, the perception by associatio= n=20 > and branding would indicate that I am.=20 >=20 > WebWork examples bundled into every app server project that would allow= it=20 > makes the most sense to me, IMHO. More articles. More evangelism. On th= e=20 > website, WebWork on jBoss, Borland, Pramati, BEA, IBM, etc. Thanks for your input. Good thoughts. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Philipp M. <me...@me...> - 2002-04-04 15:52:21
|
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:04:16PM -0600, Matt Baldree wrote: > Enhancements > 1. More velocity macros, etc. > 2. WML tags > 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) > 4. Chain actions The XSLT view stuff should be enhanced slightly to be really useful. We need some XSLT java extension for URL-escaping and so on. I don't know if I'll have the time but I don't want to give up the XSLT thingy. So is their anybody except me using it? Huh? -billy. -- Meisterbohne Söflinger Straße 100 Tel: +49-731-399 499-0 eLösungen 89077 Ulm Fax: +49-731-399 499-0 |
|
From: <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-04 15:48:21
|
Damn! Quit bringing up good points. The advantage of moving to OS would be synergy of team and tools. However, there is a risk. What if the synergy doesn't work out? Sounds like the best thing right now is to let OS clean up its house (site, products, etc.) and let WW stay where it is for now. In the meantime, we should evangelize, improve, etc. I think the decision of whether to move or not will become clearer in the future. WebWork w/ JBoss: -1 WebWork w/ OS: -1 -Matt Jim...@do... wrote > > Why don't you cast your vote then? As a non-developer on the project (thus > no vote count I assume) I will start things off. > > WebWork w/ jBoss: -1 > > This would actually alienate developers on other app servers with the > _perception_ that WebWork is tied to jBoss. This will happen no matter > what amount of documentation to the contrary. Bye-bye Orion developers, > BEA developers, etc. Besides, this makes little sense for jBoss either. > > WebWork w/ OS: -1 > > IMHO, there doesn't seem to be an integration point here. It would just > make a collection of decent web-tier tools. Nothing that couldn't be > achieved with cross-website promotion, > > > > If I am the manufacturer of a new fuel injection system, why would I want > to put Infiniti's brand on it? I want _every_ car manufacturer to be my > customer. Even if I am not excluding them, the perception by association > and branding would indicate that I am. > > WebWork examples bundled into every app server project that would allow it > makes the most sense to me, IMHO. More articles. More evangelism. On the > website, WebWork on jBoss, Borland, Pramati, BEA, IBM, etc. > > jim > > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |
|
From: <Jim...@do...> - 2002-04-04 15:05:40
|
Why don't you cast your vote then? As a non-developer on the project (thus no vote count I assume) I will start things off. WebWork w/ jBoss: -1 This would actually alienate developers on other app servers with the _perception_ that WebWork is tied to jBoss. This will happen no matter what amount of documentation to the contrary. Bye-bye Orion developers, BEA developers, etc. Besides, this makes little sense for jBoss either. WebWork w/ OS: -1 IMHO, there doesn't seem to be an integration point here. It would just make a collection of decent web-tier tools. Nothing that couldn't be achieved with cross-website promotion, If I am the manufacturer of a new fuel injection system, why would I want to put Infiniti's brand on it? I want _every_ car manufacturer to be my customer. Even if I am not excluding them, the perception by association and branding would indicate that I am. WebWork examples bundled into every app server project that would allow it makes the most sense to me, IMHO. More articles. More evangelism. On the website, WebWork on jBoss, Borland, Pramati, BEA, IBM, etc. jim |
|
From: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-04 13:34:09
|
Marketing can't be understated. I still think JBoss is building serious steam and there are things going on over there which will come to light soon. It would be nice to catch the wave. Having said that, I'm fine with the decision to go with OS. I always have been. I think the discussion has been good and I think both will be better in the long run. -Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rickard" <ri...@mi...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:03 AM Subject: [Webwork-devel] OS or JBOSS: decision time I think we have beat this horse to death enough now. Let's decide. The argument is, basically, as follows: From a technical point of view OS makes sense. From a marketing point of view JBoss makes sense. However, there are some serious pitfalls, with regard to server portability issues. That is, basically, it. AFAICT. From a personal integrity point of view I would rank the technical side as being more important. Marketing is, well, people will do what people will do, and having a strong technical side will lead to better marketing possibilities in the end. So, my conclusion would be to go with OS. IIRC Kjetil and Matt are the only ones who wanted to go with JBoss. Are there any points besides marketing that led you to that opinion? /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg _______________________________________________ Webwork-devel mailing list Web...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |
|
From: Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...> - 2002-04-04 10:05:34
|
Ok. Then it's up to you OS guys to do your planned site relaunch and we = are ready for business... BTW, some 'on-top-of-myhead' suggestion for the new OS site: - Have an overall site manager that have full control over what's = happening at all times in the different projects, no details, just so = that we don't become another Jakarta :) - Get some coding, documentation and behaviour guidelines for developers = and members (like how to get a developer status and so on - see Matt's = suggestion for details) - A roadmap for how to make the best out of all the projects and how to = integrate them nicely /kjetilhp > -----Original Message----- > From: Rickard [mailto:ri...@mi...] > Sent: 4. april 2002 11:37 > To: Kjetil Paulsen > Cc: web...@li... > Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] OS or JBOSS: decision time >=20 >=20 > Kjetil Paulsen wrote: > > I admit that we belong more at OS than JBoss - however, JBoss has > > more traffic, thats the only reason. > > > > How about this - we go for OS integration, as soon as they have > > cleaned up their site and thrown away the useless stuff, after that > > we join in effort to promote all the good stuff in the major > > magazines and websites. Then, when we start our portal project, > > which will probably include many of the OS components, we can start > > talking to JBoss and see if they will use our 'product' etc. Then > > we'll get the best of both... > > > > How does this sound? >=20 > Ok to me. >=20 > /Rickard >=20 > --=20 > Rickard =D6berg >=20 |
|
From: Patrick L. <pli...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 09:50:37
|
I think that's a great idea. By the way, I in no way meant to offend anyone in my previous posts, though looking back, I can see that some of them might have seemed a tad harsh (sorry Kjetil). Also, clearly there's a bit of friction between some of the two teams. As the rest of the OS developers would agree, we all think that WebWork is a fantastic project and wouldn't be so involved or heated in this long thread if we didn't think so. We also, of course, believe that there are some seriously powerful and very useful projects OS provides. Marketing is important, I agree. That's why, as I've said in the past, I'm working very hard to document, package, and deploy versions of some of our other modules. In fact, I'm using the WebWork documentation scheme to do this (docbook, XSL, etc). Contrary to some of the other words said during the last few hours, I look forward to putting our heads together. If I recall correctly, way back when the plan for integration was to first just update the website and not integrate code. Then slowly we'd start getting these projects to speak to each other much more fluently than they do now. I liked the plan then, and I like it now. I've been looking forward to it for some time to come, and I hope that it will still happen. -Pat >From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> >To: Kjetil Paulsen <kje...@mo...> >CC: web...@li... >Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] OS or JBOSS: decision time >Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:37:13 +0200 > >Kjetil Paulsen wrote: > > I admit that we belong more at OS than JBoss - however, JBoss has > > more traffic, thats the only reason. > > > > How about this - we go for OS integration, as soon as they have > > cleaned up their site and thrown away the useless stuff, after that > > we join in effort to promote all the good stuff in the major > > magazines and websites. Then, when we start our portal project, > > which will probably include many of the OS components, we can start > > talking to JBoss and see if they will use our 'product' etc. Then > > we'll get the best of both... > > > > How does this sound? > >Ok to me. > >/Rickard > >-- >Rickard Öberg > > >_______________________________________________ >Webwork-devel mailing list >Web...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 09:38:25
|
Kjetil Paulsen wrote: > I admit that we belong more at OS than JBoss - however, JBoss has > more traffic, thats the only reason. > > How about this - we go for OS integration, as soon as they have > cleaned up their site and thrown away the useless stuff, after that > we join in effort to promote all the good stuff in the major > magazines and websites. Then, when we start our portal project, > which will probably include many of the OS components, we can start > talking to JBoss and see if they will use our 'product' etc. Then > we'll get the best of both... > > How does this sound? Ok to me. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
34982 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
