beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eddie O'Neil <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: reorganizing netui-blank [was: [Re: beehive-914 -- started yet?]]
Date Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:31:09 GMT
Rich--

  Yep...good catch on the classoutputdir thing.  I was starting to run
through the tutorials and would have wondered why they didn't work. 
:)  There was also a problem with the "war" target.

  Appears that the build is working correctly now -- the generated
files and runtime end up in the right place.

  I'm all for adding the "destdir" attribute in lieu of having the
"classoutputdir" attribute.  I'll leave it to you about the
deprecation vs. remove thing -- personally, I'd remove them so we
don't have to support them forever, but that's just me.  ;)

  Should have this committed soon...

Eddie



On 9/11/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1.  There actually needs to be a small change to the patch, though, and
> there probably needs to be a change to the <build-pageflows> macro
> itself.  For the patch, this line in user/netui-blank/build.xml:
> 
>     weboutputdir="${build.dir}"
> 
> ...needs to be replaced with this:
> 
>     classoutputdir="${build.dir}/WEB-INF/classes"
> 
> Otherwise, classes will be built to ${web.dir}/WEB-INF/src.  And if we
> accept the proposed changes below, 'classoutputdir' would be replaced
> with 'destdir'.
> 
> Now, as to <build-pageflows>, I actually think we need to make the
> following changes, given the move to generating all files into
> WEB-INF/classes (started writing an email about this yesterday):
> 
>     - Add a 'destdir', to be in line with the rest of the macros (and
> javac).  We couldn't do this before because there were *two* destdirs
> ('classoutputdir', 'weboutputdir').
>     - Deprecate 'classoutputdir'.  If it's present and 'destdir' is not
> present, make 'destdir' default to @{classoutputdir}.
>     - Deprecate the 'weboutputdir' attribute, but if it's present and
> 'destdir' is not present, make 'destdir' default to
> @{weboutputdir}/WEB-INF/classes.
> 
> An alternative would be to simply remove 'classoutputdir' and
> 'weboutputdir' (no deprecation -- would cause anyone using v1m1 to
> change their builds).  What do you think?
> 
> Rich
> 
> Daryl Olander wrote:
> 
> >+1 I think it best that we make this kind of changes now before we ship 1.0,
> >this is a better model.
> >
> >On 9/11/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> 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