beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Feit <richf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: v1, maven, pollinate [was: Re: reorganizing netui-blank]
Date Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:09:23 GMT
I forgot to mention under #2 that having some sort of Beehive support in
NetBeans would be great.  This means support for building a Beehive project?

Rich Feit wrote:

>I changed the subject line here, just so this doesn't get lost among the
>discussion of netui-blank.  Here's my take on these three questions:
>
>1. I don't think maven-ized samples would be bundled with v1.  Adam
>Jenkins is contributing the maven plugin (which is much-needed), but I
>think that a maven  option wouldn't be worked into the distribution
>until v1.1 (or whatever the next point release is).  That's just my
>guess.  The reason for this can be found in my answer to #3.  :)  It
>does look like Eddie is working on getting our JARs out on the
>repository in time for v1:
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-user/200509.mbox/%3ce9ac8354050908212661019f8@mail.gmail.com%3e
>.
>
>2. I agree that the loss of momentum on Pollinate is disappointing,
>although I'm still really hopeful that something will appear under
>Eclipse eventually.  I agree with Adam's statement that this is a
>missing piece which would really help carry Beehive forward (by making
>it more accessible and also digestible by management types).  A
>discussion about collaboration with the Pollinate project is probably
>something we should have after v1 goes out.
>
>3. v1.  Yes, I would be shocked if we didn't release it this week.  This
>project model issue is the only one we need to resolve, as far as I
>know, and so far everyone's been supportive of it.
>
>Rich
>
>
>Glauber Adriano Reis wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I'm happy now, the layout makes its way smothly into NetBeans when you
>>import it as an
>>external web project.
>>I've got 3 questions:
>>1 - would maven-ized samples be bundled with V1? If so, I read in the
>>mailing list
>>about the plugin(I was working on such a thing as well but stoped
>>since it had
>>been already developed) but I cannot find the plugin or anything
>>mentioning it in JIRA.
>>
>>2 - Such a pity that Pollinate project is dead. What you guys think?
>>...the latest
>>NeBeans version to be released (v5) will have struts support. I think
>>it would be cool
>>having some sort of minimal beehive support as well, I'd be very glad
>>working on it (since I probably
>>wont use WebLogic 9 eclipse plugins) but want you opinion.
>>
>>3 - Is Beehive V1 due out this week? I'm pretty much anxious...  :)
>>
>>
>>Glauber Adriano
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>All--
>>>
>>>  I've got a patch ready which will reorganize the
>>><dist-root>/samples/netui-blank web project from a source-in model
>>>like:
>>>
>>>  fooWeb/
>>>    Controller.java
>>>    index.jsp
>>>    WEB-INF/
>>>      web.xml
>>>      src/
>>>        build.xml
>>>        build.properties
>>>        Foo.java
>>>
>>>to a source-peer model like:
>>>
>>>  fooWeb/
>>>    build.xml
>>>    build.properties
>>>    src/
>>>      Foo.java
>>>    web/
>>>      index.jsp
>>>      Controller.java
>>>      WEB-INF/
>>>        web.xml
>>>
>>>This brings the OOTB NetUI project model in-line with that prescribed
>>>by Tomcat and used in many projects.  It's also what Adriano suggested
>>>and used for his NetBeans project.
>>>
>>>  We're getting in the last days before 1.0 here, so we need to do
>>>two things:
>>>
>>>1) agree that this is the right thing to do
>>>2) review the patch in this bug --
>>>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-921
>>>
>>>Please do both; if you disagree with (1), say so!  :)
>>>
>>>Once / if we agree on this, I'll commit it and take a couple of hours
>>>to rework some documentation.  And, hopefully we can branch and ship
>>>1.0.  :)
>>>
>>>Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Sounds great!  Leaving netui-samples and netui-jsf seems like the right
>>>>thing to hold off for 1.1.
>>>>
>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Awesome.  I'll make this change for netui-blank but will leave
>>>>>netui-jsf and netui-samples for the sake of stability.  We can fix
>>>>>those for Beehive 1.1.
>>>>>
>>>>>This would switch the default NetUI project model to something that
>>>>>looks like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-5.0-doc/appdev/source.html
>>>>>
>>>>>which is basically:
>>>>>
>>>>>fooWebProject/
>>>>>     web/
>>>>>     src/
>>>>>     build.xml
>>>>>     build.properties
>>>>>
>>>>>with a build that works like samples/petstoreWeb.
>>>>>
>>>>>Any other thoughts about doing this?
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>I definitely agree on #2 (if I'm understanding you correctly) -- I
>>>>>>think
>>>>>>it should support the Tomcat model you're describing.  Originally
I'd
>>>>>>suggested supporting both because netui-blank is in the old project
>>>>>>model, so I assumed that this is the only one we would be supporting.
>>>>>>So I support making this change...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) yes, this simply adds a convenience target to
>>>>>>>beehive-imports.xml.
>>>>>>>It doesn't attempt to fix the validation problem discussed
>>>>>>>earlier --
>>>>>>>depending on how it's fixed, that might be an SVN-side issue with
>>>>>>>building the distribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2) I agree that we are moving away from the WEB-INF/src project
>>>>>>>model
>>>>>>>and onto the Tomcat model where web/ and src/ are peers.  This
>>>>>>>target
>>>>>>>certainly could support both models, but it's just easier to have
it
>>>>>>>support the one Tomcat prescribes that is widely used and is easily
>>>>>>>supported in various IDEs.  We can document how to setup a project
>>>>>>>with source-in-webapp.  If there was enough interest, we could
make
>>>>>>>this change now...it only affects netui-samples, netui-blank,
and
>>>>>>>netui-jsf.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich Feit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see - so this isn't the complex part of the change we were
>>>>>>>>talking
>>>>>>>>about.  This is simply adding an ant target to
>>>>>>>>beehive-imports.xml.  It
>>>>>>>>seems like a good addition, but one question I have is whether
>>>>>>>>we should
>>>>>>>>be supporting different project models with something like
>>>>>>>>this.  Seems
>>>>>>>>like we're moving away from a source-under-web-content model.

>>>>>>>>What do
>>>>>>>>you think?
>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here's the Ant that will do this; it patches
>>>>>>>>>trunk/user/beehive-imports.xml and can be run as:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>which will prompt for a destination directory for the
project. 
>>>>>>>>>Or, it
>>>>>>>>>can be run like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> $> ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.netui.webapp -Dwebapp.dir
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>which will skp the prompt since "webapp.dir" has already
been
>>>>>>>>>provided.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think this will be *really* useful and less error-prone
than the
>>>>>>>>>alternative.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>> <target name="new.netui.webapp"               description="Create
>>>>>>>>>a new NetUI-enabled Beehive webapp">
>>>>>>>>>     <input message="Provide a fully-qualified web
project path:"
>>>>>>>>>               addproperty="webapp.dir"/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     <copy todir="${webapp.dir}">
>>>>>>>>>         <fileset dir="${basedir}/samples/netui-blank">
>>>>>>>>>             <include name="**/*"/>
>>>>>>>>>         </fileset>
>>>>>>>>>     </copy>
>>>>>>>>>     <deploy-netui webappDir="${webapp.dir}"/>
>>>>>>>>>       <echo>Created a NetUI-enabled in ${webapp.dir}</echo>
>>>>>>>>> </target>
>>>>>>>>></snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Gotcha.  As far as the docs, I've got a placeholder
in the
>>>>>>>>>>netui/projects.xml doc already that describes the
cp / ant -f
>>>>>>>>>>step.
>>>>>>>>>>So, that part is easy.  ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Patch forthcoming...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, I just meant we should take a week to have
people play
>>>>>>>>>>>with it
>>>>>>>>>>>if we
>>>>>>>>>>>put it in for 1.0, that's all.  I think we'd want
to get it
>>>>>>>>>>>into the
>>>>>>>>>>>docs, too, especially where there are instructions
for copying
>>>>>>>>>>>netui-blank, etc.  What do you think about that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I'd definitely take a look at the diff, though,
even if it's
>>>>>>>>>>>something
>>>>>>>>>>>we hold until v1.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah -- I don't think it would take a week
(probably just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>of hours), but it's a little different than
how we do things
>>>>>>>>>>>>right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>because we need to support two scenarios:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>- create a new webapp
>>>>>>>>>>>>- inject the runtime files (JARs / resources)
into the samples
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>We've got the latter and could easily add
the former.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>But, we'll get very little test mileage on
it in the near
>>>>>>>>>>>>term.  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>can take a crack at it and see what you think
of the diff...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely, this would be a great thing
to have.  I have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>local
>>>>>>>>>>>>>script
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that does exactly this -- in retrospect,
this should have made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>me think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of an ant target.  I think it's something
that we should do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>1.1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>unless we want to delay the release for
a week or so...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's complicated.  :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We really need a target that can "seed"
a Beehive webapp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all of the validation config files,
runtime JARs, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NetUI URL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>addressable resources.  Today, this
is done using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>command like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cp -rf samples/netui-blank <project-dir>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ant -f ant/beehive-runtime.xml deploy.beehive.webapp.runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Dwebapp.dir=<project-dir>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If, for example, you just do the latter,
you'll end up with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>webapp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that has the runtime but no web.xml
or validation config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>files.  And,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that's kind of bad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Would be *very* nice to have a target
that just does:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ant -f beehive-imports.xml new.beehive.webapp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-Dproject.dir=...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It could even prompt for the project.dir
-- kind of like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wizard in Ant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We could do this for 1.0, but it's
not an insignificant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's *definitely* something we need
for 1.1...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, if it's complicated at all,
I agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Daryl Olander wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                             

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+1 to doing the real fix post
1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                         
      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I take it back...this
isn't a straightforward thing to fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unfortunately because
it affects the Ant used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in both the distribution
and SVN builds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It wouldn't be hard to
change it, but if we're going to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>should add the beehive-netui-validator-config.xml
file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adding web.xml) to those
as well...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree (now) having them
checked in is the right thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unless we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>want to tackle the bigger
problem of copying all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>config files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And, I'd rather ship 1.0
and fix that later. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9/9/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                     
            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, I certainly don't
have an objection to that...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 
                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, it doesn't
*have* to happen now, but doing it now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ensures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that we're consistent.
So, I'm going to go ahead and fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>getting the compiler
change in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich Feit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>             
                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I haven't
started it -- it doesn't seem like anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that has to
go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>into v1, right?
Just checking. I did update the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>checked-in
files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                     
            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the right
version -- this is just the longer-term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to ensure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                     
            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this doesn't
happen again... :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie O'Neil
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         
                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you
started fixing BEEHIVE-914 yet? If not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>let me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'll take
that one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     
                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

Mime
View raw message